[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Anil Ravindran vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2026
2026:KER:15380
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 29TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 416 OF 2018
PETITIONER/S:
ANIL RAVINDRAN
AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRANATHAN,SANKARAM, CMC-17,
CHERTHALA,PIN - 688 524, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV SMT.PREETHA ANIL RAVEENDRAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3 THE JOIN REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL),ALAPPUZHA - 688 011.
4 GENERAL MANGER
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
HEAD OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 011.
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
GP- JIMMY GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.416 of 2018
2
2026:KER:15380
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2026
The writ petition was initially filed challenging Ext.P15 passed
by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an
application seeking amendment of the pleadings and prayers in
the writ petition. In view of the amendment carried out, the writ
petition now challenges Exts.P15 and P18.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he availed cash credit
facility from the 4th respondent Bank for an amount of
Rs.3,42,000/- in the year 1997. The purpose of availing cash credit
facility was for doing contract works by executing power of
attorney with respect to those works and also by mortgaging
property belonged to his father, who was the guarantor to the said
loan.
3. It is also contended that the cheques by which the bill
amounts were dispatched directly from PWD Alappuzha to the
4th respondent were intended to credit the amounts to the account
of the complainant and to appropriate the said amounts towards
the principal and interest on the loan. It is further contended that
the amounts were not properly credited to the account, and the
2026:KER:15380
account showed overdue amounts. Resultantly, alleging default on
the part of the petitioner, the 4th respondent initiated ARC No.
350/2000 demanding Rs.6,27,653.80 with 24% interest. According
to the petitioner, without serving notice at the correct address, the
ex parte award was passed, as evident in Ext.P1, whereby an
award amount of Rs.10,62,886.80, together with 24% interest from
01.08.2002, was awarded.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred R.P.
No.518 of 2003 before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. By order
dated 15.06.2004, the revision was partly allowed, and the award
was modified to state that the respondent was permitted to realise
the suit amount with future interest at the contract rate from the
date of the suit till the date of realisation of the entire amount.
5. Even thereafter, no amount was paid by the petitioner.
Hence, a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002,
was issued for taking possession of the property. The petitioner
replied to the said notice, as evidenced by Ext.P5. Though the
petitioner sought a statement of account, it was not provided.
Instead, a paper publication was effected, as evidenced by Ext.P6,
for the purpose of taking possession of the property. Thereafter
the petitioner approached the respondent Bank for availing the
2026:KER:15380
details of account under Right to Information Act. However, that
was rejected on the ground that the application under the said Act
is not applicable in the case of the Co-operative Society.
6. The petitioner again approached the 4th respondent for
availing statement of account with details to show the method by
which the amount is calculated, as shown in the paper publication.
The petitioner also approached the Joint Registrar as evident from
Ext.P10. In the meanwhile, the guarantor approached the
4th respondent Bank to seek the benefits under the Aswas 2014
Scheme. On considering the same by the Administrative
Committee of the Bank on 20.03.2014, as per resolution No.DBR
No.63(8), it was decided to settle the amount for an amount of
Rs.21,64,054/- by deducting an amount of Rs.10,24,735/- and also
get a ratification from the Steering Committee as per Aswas 2014
Scheme.
7. However, by Ext.P12, the complaint preferred against
the exorbitant amount settled as per Aswas 2014 Scheme was
declined by the Bank stating that the benefit given to the
petitioner was ratified by the second Steering Committee under
the Aswas 2014 Scheme on the basis of the recommendation given
by the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Society. Accordingly, the
2026:KER:15380
cash credit facility availed by the petitioner was closed, and the
documents were returned to the petitioner following ratification by
the Steering Committee. Similarly, the Joint Registrar replied that
the account had been closed by granting benefits under the Aswas
2014 Scheme amounting to Rs.10,24,735.80, and that the
documents were also returned to the petitioner. Therefore, no
further action required to be taken on the complaints preferred by
the petitioner.
8. Under such circumstances, the petitioner again
approached this Court by preferring W.P.(C) No. 27032 of 2016,
whereby contended that he was not given the entire benefit as
contemplated under Aswas 2014 Scheme. On evaluating the
contentions, this Court observed that;
"it was obligatory for the 1st respondent to consider the
merit of the case set up by the petitioner. The remittance
of the amount demanded by the Bank under the scheme
by the petitioner out of compelling circumstances may not
be a ground to decline him the benefits of the scheme. In
so far as the scheme was one formulated by the Registrar
of Co-operative Societies, it was obligatory on the part of
the Bank to extend the benefits of the same uniformly to
all. The scheme does not confer a discretion to the Bank in
the matter of extending its benefits. As such, if discretion
is given to the Bank while implementing a scheme of this
nature, the same would result in arbitrariness. As pointed
out earlier, the 1st respondent has not considered the
merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P4
representation."
2026:KER:15380
9. In the light of the said direction, the Joint Registrar had
considered the representation preferred by the petitioner.
However, the representation was rejected in the circumstances
that the benefit was given under Aswas 2014 Scheme for the cash
credit facility availed by the petitioner and it was approved by the
second Steering Committee under the scheme, no further discount
can be given to the petitioner for the amount already realised from
the petitioner to the tune of Rs.21,64,054/- and the complaint was
closed as no further remedy can be given to the petitioner.
10. In this circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner brought to the attention of this Court Circular
No.1/2014 of "Aswas-2014", in which Clause 3 stands for
considering the loan amount up to Rs.5,00,000/-. Clause 3 of the
said Circular is as follows:
3. 5 ലക്ഷം രൂപ വരെയുള്ള വായ്പക
(i). 5 ലക്ഷം വരെയുള്ള വായ്പകൾ മുതൽ) കുടിശ്ശികയായിട്ടുണ്ടെങ്കിൽ
വായ്പയെടുക്കുമ്പോൾ നിലവിലിരുന്ന പലിശനിരക്കോ, ഇപ്പോഴുള്ള
പലിശനിരക്കോ ഏതാണോ കുറവ് ആയതുപ്രകാരമുള്ള പലിശതുകയു
മുതലും ഈടാക്കി, ബാക്കി നിൽപ്പ് പിഴപലിശ, നോട്ടീസ് ചാർജ്ജ് മറ്റ്
ചാർജ്ജുകൾ എന്നിവ ഒഴിവാക്കി, എന്നാൽ സംഘത്തിൽ നിന്നും
ആർബിട്രേഷൻ ഫീസ്, എക്സിക്യുഷൻ ഫീസ് എന്നിവ
അടച്ചിട്ടുണ്ടെങ്കിൽ ആയത് ഈടാക്കി വായ്പാ കണക്ക്
അവസാനിപ്പിക്കാവുന്നതാണ്.
` 11. The petitioner also pointed out the definition given to
the principal amount as per Clause 5(kn) is as follows:
2026:KER:15380
5(kn) ഖണ്ഡിക 3,4,5 ൽ പ്രതിപാദിക്കുന്ന 'മുതൽ ' എന്നാൽ
വായ്പയിൽ ബാക്കിനിൽകുന്നമുതൽ എന്നാകുന്നു. മുമ്പ് വായ്പ
യിൽ
അടച്ച മുതലോ, പലിശയോ യാതൊരു കാരണവശാലും
കണക്കിലെടുക്കേണ്ടതോ, പുനഃ പരിശോധിക്കേണ്ടതോ ആയിട്ടുള്ളതല്ല.
ബാക്കിനിൽകുന്ന മുതലിൽ ആണ് പലിശ കണക്കാക്കേണ്ടത്.
12. On the basis of the said wordings in the Circular, it is
contended by the petitioner that the principal amount means the
amount of loan. Though by Ext.P2 the award was passed on
04.07.2002 as Rs.10,62,886.80 with 24% interest but the same
was modified by the Tribunal in R.P. No.518 of 2003 by order dated
15.06.2004, whereby it was clarified that the respondent is allowed
to realise the suit amount with future interest at the contracted
rate from the date of the suit till the date of the realisation of the
entire amount. In such background, it is contended by the
petitioner that the principal amount means the suit amount which
is evident in Ext.P1 suit before the ARC ie., Rs.6,27,653.80.
13. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner
once again approached the Government by preferring Ext.P17
revision, wherein the petitioner again contended that he was not
given proper benefit as contemplated under the judgment dated
30.09.2016 in W.P.(C) No.27032 of 2016 i.e., Ext.P14 and the
benefit given by the scheme as Rs.10,24,735/- is incorrect and
2026:KER:15380
without any evidence and the amount directed to be remitted as
Rs.21,64,054/- itself is more than the maximum amount that can
be realised from the petitioner as per the modified award of the
Co-operative Tribunal.
14. The Government has passed an order in revision under
Section 87 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 by G.O.
(Rt) No.432/2017/Co-op dated 11.08.2017 and it is finally
considered that "seeking relief based on an application submitted
on exceptional circumstances and demanding illegal benefit can
not be accepted. ARC had passed an award on August, 2002 and
principal amount awarded by ARC was Rs.10,62,896/- . ARC had
permitted the Bank to realise this amount with interest. The
appellant had not challenged the award amount. But appellant
filed revision on the ground of the exorbitant rate of interest only.
This means that appellant had accepted the award of ARC, which is
the principal amount in respect of the cash credit loan. Based on
the award of ARC, Bank had initiated step to realise amount under
SARFAESI Act. The mortgaged property was attached and the
property was under the possession of the Bank. Thus Bank had
completed the strategy to realise the entire amount passed by the
ARC. So the argument of the appellant that the principal amount is
2026:KER:15380
Rs. 3,42,000/- will not stand. Every defaulter has the responsibility
to settle the loan in time. Moreover Cash credit facility and Credit
loan are different in character."
15. In response to the contentions, the 4th respondent
preferred a counter affidavit in which it was admitted that the
petitioner had availed a cash credit facility for Rs.3,42,000/- on
24.03.1994. The security for the loan was the property owned by
the father of the petitioner. On default committed by the
petitioner, the Bank initiated ARC No.350 of 2022 and an award
was secured for an amount of Rs.10,62,886/- and interest accrued
thereon at contract rate from 01.08.2002. Though a revision was
preferred before the Arbitration Tribunal and the award was upheld,
proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were subsequently initiated
for realisation of the amount, and possession of the secured
property was taken by the Bank.
16. In the meantime, the Government of Kerala introduced
Aswas 2014 Scheme for settling the defaulted loans. It is also
admitted that the petitioner is entitled for the same and maximum
benefit was granted to him. The loan was closed on 13.03.2015
under the terms of Aswas 2014 Scheme. Though an amount of
Rs.31,88,789.90 was due, the loan was settled for an amount of
2026:KER:15380
Rs. 21,64,050.00 and the petitioner was given a concession of
Rs.10,25,000.90.
17. Claiming further concession, the petitioner approached
this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.27032 of 2016. Pursuant to the
judgment rendered therein, the competent authority reconsidered
the matter and passed an order rejecting the petitioner's
contentions. The matter was thereafter placed before the
Government, which, by a detailed order, rejected the petitioner's
claim.
18. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended
that, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A. No.1590 of 2014 dated 07.04.2015, the petitioner is not
entitled to any additional benefits beyond those already granted.
However, on perusal of the judgment, it appears that the writ
appeal was preferred by another District Co-operative Bank against
the direction of the learned Single Judge to consider the claim of
the petitioner therein for granting the benefit under One Time
Settlement Scheme.
19. On considering the facts involved in the matter, the
Division Bench summarised the issue arising in the writ appeal as
to whether the writ court can issue a writ of mandamus,
2026:KER:15380
compelling the Bank / Financial Institution to extend the benefit of
One Time Settlement Scheme, on the basis of various decisions
rendered by the Apex Court as well as this Court. In the light of the
law so declared by the Apex Court, this Court was of the firm view
that the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate the issue in
the correct perspective, both on facts and in law, and accordingly
set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which had
directed the respondent to consider the claim under the One Time
Settlement Scheme.
20. I have heard Smt.Preetha V.K., the learned counsel for
the petitioner, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the 4 th
respondent and Sri.Jimmy George, the learned Government Pleader
for respondents 1 to 3.
21. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was granted the
benefit of the One Time Settlement Scheme, as evidenced by Exts.
P13, P15 and P18. However, the dispute that remains for
consideration is whether the authorities had granted the full
benefit contemplated under the Aswas 2014 Scheme pursuant to
the directions issued in the earlier writ petition. For that purpose,
it is to examine Clause 3 of the Circular No.1 of 2024. Clause 3(i)
states that "if loans up to Rs. 5,00,000/- are in arrears, the loan
2026:KER:15380
account may be closed upon payment of the principal and interest
calculated at the rate of interest prevailing at the time of availing
the loan or at the current rate of interest, whichever is lower,
excluding the remaining penal interest, notice charges, and other
incidental charges, but including arbitration fees and execution
fees, if any, paid by the Society." Clause 3(ii) further clarifies that,
"if the interest is calculated in accordance with the prescribed rate,
the amount so calculated towards interest shall not exceed the
outstanding principal amount."
22. A further reading of the Circular shows that the term
"principal amount" is defined under Clause 5(kn) to mean the
remaining amount of the loan. The amount already remitted,
together with the interest thereon, cannot be recalculated. Interest
can therefore be calculated only on the basis of the remaining
principal amount.
23. However, on perusal of the impugned orders it can be
seen that the authority proceeded on the basis of the award dated
04.07.2002, whereby a sum of Rs. 10,62,886.80 was awarded
together with interest at 24% per annum, compounded quarterly,
from 01.08.2002. Although the award was subsequently modified
by the Tribunal, as evidenced by Ext.P3, clarifying that the
2026:KER:15380
respondent was entitled to realise only the suit amount with future
interest at the contract rate from the date of the suit until
realisation, the authorities appear to have relied upon the original
award amount. From that can be discernible that the suit amount
means the amount claimed by the Bank as evident in Ext.P1
petition before the arbitration court, wherein a sum of
Rs.6,27,653.80 was claimed. Instead of taking the said suit amount
into consideration, the authorities accepted the award amount,
without adverting to the fact that the award had been modified
permitting realisation only of the suit amount.
24. Going by the calculation provided in Ext.P12 and
explanation provided in Ext.P18, it is discernible that the authority
did not properly consider the direction of the Tribunal to realise the
suit amount. As aforementioned by granting the benefit on the
suit amount, it can be seen that the petitioner is liable to pay twice
the suit amount.
25. Even going by Ext.P18, it can be seen that the award
amount plus interest (equal to award amount) which comes to
Rs.12,55,266/-. As per scheme what are liable to be realised are
only the arbitration fees and execution fees. However, as evident
in Ext.P18, amounts were also realised towards advertisement
2026:KER:15380
charges and establishment charges, which is against the spirit of
the Aswas 2014 Scheme.
26. As per the scheme, the petitioner is liable to pay the
award amount together with interest and court fee. Advertisement
charges and establishment charges are not liable to be imposed on
the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay only a sum
of Rs. 12,61,331/-.
27. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to
the balance amount after deducting Rs.12,61,331/- from
Rs.21,64,054/-, which was already remitted by the petitioner, with
present statutory interest, within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
sss
2026:KER:15380
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 416 OF 2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN ARC 350-2000
DATED 4.11.2000
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN ARC 350/2000
DATED 15.7.2002
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CO-OP
TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN
R.P.518/2003 DTD. 15/6/2004
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 13(2) OF
SARFAESI ACT DATED 15/3/2011
EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 15/6/2012
EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION DATED
24.7.2013
EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER THE
RTI ACT DATED 29.7.2013
EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 10.8.2013
EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.04.2014
EXHIBIT P10. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 27.10.2014
EXHIBIT P11. TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 20.3.2014
EXHIBIT P12. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT BEFORE R3 DATED 15.7.2015
EXHIBIT P13. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SERVED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 2.6.2016
EXHIBIT P14. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.9.2016
IN W.P.(C).27032/2016
EXHIBIT P15. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.2.2017
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
