Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 2358
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
THE BRANCH MANAGER – Appellant
Versus
ABDUL SALIM Advocate - K SIJU ,RENY ANTO – Respondent
REVIEW PETITION 702/2018
The court established that accrued interest must be paid, but the review petitioner may seek waivers based on special circumstances.
Headnote:
Review - Quantum of Amounts - None
Fact of the Case:
The review petition seeks clarification on the quantum owed by the writ petitioner, who contends that a payment of Rs. 10,29,761/- was made, along with an additional Rs. 40,000/- thereafter. The review petitioner argues for further amounts due as of September 30, 2018.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the initial amount of Rs.10,29,761/- was due as of May 24, 2018, and acknowledged that accrued interest must also be settled. The court advised the writ petitioner to seek a waiver on the interest from the review petitioner bank.
Issues: The key issue was whether the writ petitioner was liable for additional interest and amounts beyond what was previously acknowledged.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that, in special circumstances, the determination of due interest and any waivers should be at the discretion of the bank’s management after proper representation by the writ petitioner.
Final Decision: The review is allowed to the extent stated, focusing on accrued interest liability and management discretion for waivers.
O R D E R
This review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment in as much as the quantum of the amounts shown as due from the writ petitioner/1st respondent. It is stated by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that this Court had directed the payment of an amount of Rs.10,29,761/- which was stated to be the amount due. It is contended that it was specifically stated in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition that the said amount was due as on 24.5.2018 and that the interest in charges thereafter would also have to be paid by the writ petitioner.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/1st respondent submits that apart from an amount of Rs.10,29,761/-, a further amount of Rs. 40,000/- had been remitted by him on 14.8.2018 and therefore the review petition was unnecessary. However, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner would submit that as on 30.09.2018 an amount of Rs.54,217 is due from the writ petitioner apart from the amount of Rs.10,29,761 remitted by him on the basis of the judgment. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that the amount of Rs.10,29,761/- had been remitted by the writ petitioner in his savings account and that is the reason for the further accrual of charges in the loan account.
3. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I am of the opinion that since an amount of Rs.10,29,761/- was due from the writ petitioner as on 24.05.2018, the accrued interest would also have to be paid by him. However, in view of the special circumstances pointed out in the instant case, I am of the opinion that it is for the writ petitioner to approach the review petitioner seeking waiver of any portion of the interest and penal interest. In case such representation is preferred by the writ petitioner, the same will be considered and decided in accordance with law by the Assistant General Manager of the review petitioner bank. The amounts already remitted by the writ petitioner in the saving bank account towards the satisfaction of the loan shall be immediately transferred to the loan account and given credit to. The request with regard to the waiving of the penal interest shall be decided by the Assistant General Manager, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The right of the writ petitioner to challenge the correctness of the amounts demanded from him is left open.
The judgment is reviewed to the above extent.
