ANTONY DOMINIC , J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent.
2. The appellant had filed W.P.(C)No.7969/2013, with a prayer to direct the 1st respondent-Bank to re-convey his property which was purchased by the Bank in auction. By judgment dated 29.10.2014, the learned Single Judge declined the prayer sought for. It is in such circumstances, this appeal is filed.
3. When the appeal was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is willing to clear the entire arrears due to the Bank and requested that the Bank be directed to re-convey the property to the appellant. When this submission was made, the learned counsel for the Bank sought an adjournment for obtaining instructions in the matter.
4. Today, when the matter is taken up, based on the instructions obtained, the learned counsel for the Bank submitted that as of now the total amount due to the Bank is ₹24,42,509/-
and that if the appellant is willing to remit the amount in full before 13.12.2014, to which date the property is scheduled to be sold, the Bank is willing to re-convey the property to the appellant. When this submission was made, though the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the willingness of the appellant to liquidate the liability in full, he brought to our notice that the Bank is charging 20% interest and penal interest of 2%. This, according to the learned counsel, particularly, for the period subsequent to the award obtained in 2003, is unconscionable and illegal. According to him, therefore, this is a fit case where the Bank should be directed to reduce the interest. He has also invited our attention to Exhibit P5 notice issued by the Bank on 11.3.2013, where the Bank has demanded registration charges of 15% and according to him, the Bank is now demanding 20% on this count.
5. We do find some force in what the learned counsel for the appellant states in regard to the rate of interest that is charged and according to us, this is a fit case where the Bank should consider reduction of the rate of interest that is levied. However, having regard to the fact that the Bank has already obtained an award in this matter, we leave the matter to the wisdom of the Bank, instead of issuing any positive directions.
6. Taking note of the above and also the submission made at the Bar, we dispose of this appeal with the following directions.
(i) As undertaken before this Court, the appellant shall deposit an amount of ₹20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) to the Bank on or before 06.12.2014.
(ii) Once the remittance is made as above, it would be open to the appellant to make a representation to the Bank requesting for reduction of the rate of interest and also the registration charges. If such a representation is made, the Bank shall consider the same with the sympathy that it deserves and pass orders thereon. The decision on the representation shall be communicated to the appellant at any rate before 10.12.2014.
(iii) Once the decision of the Bank is communicated as above, the appellant shall remit the balance amount due to the Bank on or before 13.12.2014.
(iv) If all the conditions mentioned above are complied with by the appellant, the property will be conveyed to him immediately, thereafter.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE dsn Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE