A.Leela vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 25 January, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 2869 of 2009()


1. A.LEELA, W/O.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/ARBITRATOR-CUM-

4. THE KASARAGOD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN,SC,KASARGOD DIST.CO.BAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN

 Dated :25/01/2010

 O R D E R
                  C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                        P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.
                  --------------------------------------------
                        W. A. No. 2869 OF 2009
                  --------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010

                               JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single

Judge declining to interfere in the matter because the appellant’s

liability due to the Bank is covered by Ext.P2 award of the Arbitrator

which was not challenged in appeal before the Tribunal, nor before this

Court in the Writ Petition. We have heard counsel for the appellant

and standing counsel appearing for the fourth respondent-Bank. Since

the appellant’s case is that demand of penal interest is arbitrary and

similar others were granted benefit by the Adalat, we called for the

details of collection of interest by the Bank from the appellant.

Counsel has produced statement of accounts as on 22.1.2010. On

going through the statement of accounts produced by the Bank we

notice that contract rate of interest for the House Building loan availed

2

by the appellant itself was at high rate of 16%. The loan was availed in

the year 2001 and disbursements were made only by the end of 2001.

Even though there was default by 17.8.2009, appellant has settled the

entire liability in terms of the demand by the Bank . Considering the

several defaulters’ case settled by the Bank by granting incentives, we

do not find any justification for denying the incentives to the appellant,

more so when the contract rate of interest itself is at high rate of 16%

that too for House Building loan which is a priority loan under

Government norms. In fact at present, even Nationalised Banks are

giving House Building loans at an interest rate of 8 to 8.5 per cent

which is only 50 per cent of the interest charged on the appellant. On

equitable consideration, we feel the appellant should be granted

incentives granted in similar cases. From the statement of accounts

furnished by the Bank we notice that 19% interest is charged, which

includes three per cent penal rate from 1.12.2004 to 16.8.2009 that is

for 1720 days on the principal amount of Rs. 98320/-. We therefore

allow the Writ Appeal by vacating the judgment of the learned single

Judge and direct the Bank to waive three per cent of penal interest for

3

the period above stated and grant refund of 3% collected on the

principal amount of Rs. 98320/- within a period of one month from the

date of production of a copy of this judgment by the appellant.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.

(P.S. GOPINATHAN)
Judge.

kk

4