Kararinakam Service Co-Operative Bank ... vs Reetha.C.P
2024 Latest Caselaw 27093 Ker

Kerala High Court

Kararinakam Service Co-Operative Bank ... vs Reetha.C.P on 6 September, 2024

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON

     FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 15TH BHADRA, 1946

                        WP(C) NO. 20293 OF 2024

PETITIONER/S:

          KARARINAKAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. C-88LL
          KURUVA.P.O., KADALAYI, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS
          SECRETARY, PIN - 670003


          BY ADVS.
          M.SASINDRAN
          JOGGY MATHUNNI




RESPONDENT/S:

    1     REETHA.C.P.
          D/O. KRISHNAN, DEVIKA, KIZHUNNA.P.O., KANNUR, PIN -
          670007

    2     KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL
          XW7+GSM, JAWAHAR SAHAKARANABHAVAN, VAZHUTHAVAUD, DPI,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001


          BY ADV G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA)


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 20293 OF 2024

                                              2


                       HARISANKAR V. MENON, J

                       W.P.(C) No. 20293 of                 2024
                                   th
             Dated this the 6                day of September, 2024

                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner, a Co-operative Society, had advanced st certain loans to the 1 respondent herein. The first

respondent defaulted the said loan amount. The petitioner

instituted ARC proceedings and by Ext.P3 the Arbitrator,

issued an award. It is to be noticed straight away that there

is no dispute as regards the principal liability. As per st Ext.P3, the 1 respondent herein was to remit 15% interest

and 2% penal interest.

st

2. Against Ext.P3, the 1 respondent preferred an

appeal before the second respondent. In the appeal, as

noticed in paragraph 7 of the judgment at Ext.P4, the

counsel pointed out that the rate of interest is on the higher

side. On the basis of the above submission by Ext.P4

judgment, though the appeal was dismissed, the interest is

seen reduced to 10% per annum from the date of initiation WP(C) NO. 20293 OF 2024

of the ARC proceedings.

3. It is challenging Ext.P4, that the captioned writ

petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. Sri. M.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the

petitioner relies upon Exts.P1 and P2, through which the st loan has been obtained by the 1 respondent against the

deposit of title deeds, at 15% interest along with 2% penal

interest. It is therefore submitted that in view of Exts.P1 and st P2, wherein the 1 respondent herein was a signatory, the nd 2 respondent-Tribunal ought not to have reduced the

interest to 10%. Sri.Sasindran also points out that there are

no reasons pointed out in Ext.P4 order for having reduced

the interest to 10%.

5. Per contra, Sri.Harikrishnan, the learned counsel st for the 1 respondent points out that there was specific

prayer for reduction before the tribunal and he also relies

upon the judgment in Kottayam District Co-operative Bank V

Annie John [2003 (3) KLT 416], to contend that the

petitioner was not justified in including the penal interest WP(C) NO. 20293 OF 2024

component in the loan amount.

6. I have considered the rival submissions as well

as the connected records.

7. The only dispute in this writ petition is as

against the reduction of interest from 15% to 10%.

Sri.Sasindran is right in contending that the petitioner was a nd signatory to Exts.P1 and P2 and when that be so, the 2

respondent - Tribunal ought not to have reduced interest to

10%, especially without assigning any valid reasons.

Therefore, the judgment at Ext.P4 would stand set aside.

8. However, taking into consideration, the overall

facts and figures of the case at hand, this court feels that

the petitioner herein may be permitted to realise arrears at

15% interest per annum alone from the date of initiation of

the ARC proceedings. It is clarified that the said reduction is

ordered taking into consideration the facts and circumstances

of the case as pointed out by Sri.Harikrishnan, on behalf of st the 1 respondent and would not be treated as a precedent

for future cases.

WP(C) NO. 20293 OF 2024

The Writ Petition is allowed as above.

sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE

R.AV WP(C) NO. 20293 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20293/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE 'GEHAN' EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN LEDGER STATEMENT SIGNED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 30.6.2018 OF THE CO-OPERATIVE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) KANNUR

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2023 IN APPEAL NO. 13/2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT