1. W.P.(C) No.24193 of 2024 is filed by a Co-operative bank, which had initiated proceedings against the third respondent for recovery of the dues after the said respondent defaulted on the four business loans availed from the petitioner bank. The bank instituted Arbitration proceedings as A.R.C No.2275/2018, A.R.C No.2299/2018, A.R.C. No.2301/2018 and A.R.C.No.2300/2018 before the Assistant Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies, Thrissur. It is submitted by the petitioner that the loan availed by Joshi, which is the subject matter of A.R.C.No.2300/2018, was subsequently closed on 29.04.2022.

2. It is seen that in the A.R.C. Proceedings, the respondent did not contest the claim, but only wanted six months for paying the amount due. Accordingly, awards were passed as Exts.P1 to P3. Thereafter, Execution Petitions were filed for the recovery of the said amount. Petitioner submits that the third respondent was also granted an opportunity to settle the loan under the OTS scheme, which they did not avail.

3. Against the three awards, the third respondent filed appeals as A.P. No.246/2023, A.P.No.247/2023 and A.P.No.248/2023 before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal passed Ext.P4 common judgment in appeal, which interfered with the order of the Arbitrator by reducing the rate of interest to 10% from 15%. The bank challenges the common award in W.P.(C) No.24193 of 2024. The third respondent filed W.P.(C) No.31220 of 2024, challenging the very same award.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the bank submits that the interest should not have been slashed to 10% from 15%, which causes a huge loss to them. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal went wrong in finding that the respondent had conceded the claim before the Arbitrator.

6. However, on a reading of the common judgment, it is clear that the Tribunal had called for the documents from the Arbitrator and found that the defaulter had conceded the plaint claim and a statement was given to that effect in writing. Under such circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the procedure adopted by the Tribunal. The petitioner, in fact, stands benefited by the reduction of interest from 15% to 10%.

7. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both cases and on going through and perusing the records, I hold that the Tribunal should not have reduced the interest from 15% to 10%. However, in the interest of justice, the common judgment is modified by directing that the outstanding amount be paid with an interest of 12%.

8. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of, directing the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.31220 of 2024 to deposit 20% of the total amount due, which is calculated at Rs.1,54,03,537/- as the principal amount and an interest of Rs.1,05,61,197/- as on 02.02.2026 and Rs.1,60,425/- as other charges totalling Rs.2,61,25,159/-.

9. In view of the above, the petitioner in W.P.C 31220/2024 is granted an opportunity to repay the outstanding amount on the following conditions:

                  (i) The petitioner has to pay 20% of the total amount on or before 05.03.2026.

                  (ii) The balance outstanding, along with accrued interest, costs, and charges, if any, shall be paid in 12 equal monthly instalments starting from 5th April, 2026, and subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before the 5th day of every succeeding month.

                  (iii) In the event of default of any one instalment, the respondent Bank   shall be entitled to proceed  in accordance with the law;

                  (iv) All coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance to enable the petitioner to repay the entire amount directed above.

                  (V) This judgment will not prevent the petitioner from approaching the bank for any reduction/assistance or availing the OTS, subject to the Regulations of the Bank.

                  The writ petitions are disposed of as above.