Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE28H DAY OF JANUARY20148TH MAGHA, 1935 RP.No. 67 of 2014 (V) IN WP(C).20974/2008 ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN WP(C) 20974/2098 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED1511-2013 REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------------- ROMEO JACOB, S/O JACOB, MEKATTUKULAM HOUSE, MUNDUR DESOM ANJUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.R.MANOJ SMT.SINDHU MANOJ SMT.P.P.BLESSY MOL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, THRISSUR-676 001 2. PRAKASAN, S/O.KARAPPAN, VATTAKULANGARA HOUSE, PONNORE DESOM EDAKALATHUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 676 001 R BY SRI.C.A.MAJEED, SC, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO.OP. BANK THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2801-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP.No. 67 of 2014 (V) IN WP(C).20974/2008 APPENDIX REVIEW PETITIONERS ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE1T RESPONDENT DT111.2014 ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS DT61.2014 ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT AND CORRESPONDING RECEIPT ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING REMITTANCE ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DT239.2008 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Review Petition No. 67 of 2014 in W.P(C) No. 20974 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of January, 2014 ORDER
Writ petition was filed by the petitioner raising two contentions against the recovery of loan amounts being limitation and capitalisation of penal interest. Both the contentions were negatived by this Court, in the judgment which is sought to be reviewed. But, however, indulgence was shown to the petitioner insofar as granting instalments as is indicated in paragraph 7 of the judgment. The petitioners contention in the above review is that the petitioner was issued with Annexure A2, which does not have the character of a statement of accounts, as has been directed by this Court and is merely a statement of the amounts due. R.P672014. :
2. :
2. The review petitioner's contention is that the Bank ought to have issued a statement of accounts showing the amounts paid by the petitioner to the loan account and the interest levied; quarterly, half yearly or yearly as stipulated in the agreement and the balance due as any bank 'statement of accounts' indicate. Even going by the directions issued, it is clear that what was directed to be issued to the petitioner is a statement of accounts and the direction was to make payments starting from one week thereafter. Since no proper statement of accounts has ben issued, it is deemed fit that the Bank be granted a further time of two weeks to issue a proper 'statement of accounts' to the petitioner. The payments as directed in the judgment shall commence one week thereafter Review petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma // true copy // P.A to Judge