A.MANOMANI v. STATE OF KERALA

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.-------------------------W.P.(C.) No.16844 of 2009---------------------------------Dated, this the 18th day of June, 2009J U D G M E N TThe petitioner had availed of a loan of Rs.50,000/- from therespondent Bank as early as on 22/10/1993. Default wascommitted leading to filing of Ext.P4 plaint for recovery ofRs.67,225/- from the petitioner. The matter was contested and theclaim was decreed as per Ext.P5. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 appealto the 2nd respondent, and that was dismissed as per Ext.P7. It is inthese circumstances, the writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P5and P7 and for consequential reliefs.

Before the Arbitrator and the Appellate Tribunal, defenceput forward by the petitioner was that from 31/03/1994 to05/07/1997, the Bank had taken on lease a building belonging tothe petitioner. It is stated that initially, the rent was Rs.200/-, andlater it was revised to Rs.900/-, and still later it was revised atRs.1,250/-. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P2 undertakinggiven by her, the Bank was authorised to appropriate the rent WP(C) No.16844/2009-2-payable towards the loan liability that was due. It is stated that onthis basis, he Bank has realised an amount of Rs.53,250/-. But, however, in the plaint failed, they have shown that they have onlyrealised Rs.3153/-. Yet another contention that is now raised isthat in addition to the rent that was appropriated, which has notbeen properly accounted, the petitioner has also made a payment ofRs.28800/- as per Ext.P9 series of receipts. It is stated that thisamount is also not credited in the accounts. On this basis, thelearned counsel contends that the amount shown in Ext.P5 and itsconfirmation in Ext.P7 is erroneous.

In so far as the appropriation of the rent is concerned, going by the pleading in this writ petition, the total amount that hasbeen realised by the Bank is Rs.53,250/-. However, a reading of Ext.P5 decree shows that towards interest and principal arrears, the Bank has realised Rs.51,911/- and Rs.3,153/- respectively. Thesetwo figures would show that the Bank has accounted receipt of morethan what the petitioner claims. If that be so, the case of thepetitioner regarding the inaccuracy of the accounts in this respectcannot be accepted. WP(C) No.16844/2009-3-4.In so far as Ext.P9 receipts are concerned, a reading of Exts.P5 & P7 show that these documents were not produced beforethe Arbitrator or the appellate authority during the course of theproceedings. Yet another contention that is also raised before this Court is that a statement of account was not produced by the Bank. That also not seems to be factually correct, as the Tribunal inparagraph 5 of Ext.P7 order, refers to a statement of account, thatwas produced by the Bank. In the light of the above, I am notsatisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interferencewith the concurrent findings against him as contained in Exts.P5 &P7. Therefore, the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. Needless to say that this judgment will not stand in the way ofthe petitioner in pursuing with the Bank for any instalment facility orfor the benefit of OTS scheme or any other such scheme that iscurrently in force. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)jg