Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THANKAM CASHEW EXPORTERS, PALLIKKAL versus THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


THANKAM CASHEW EXPORTERS, PALLIKKAL v. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WA No. 244 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 9288 (1 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 244 of 2007()

1. THANKAM CASHEW EXPORTERS, PALLIKKAL
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

3. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,

4. KOLLAM CASHEW MANUFACTURERS &

For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.PRADEEP

For Respondent :SRI.L.MOHANAN, SC, KFC

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :01/06/2007

O R D E R

H.L.Dattu, C.J. & K.T.Sankaran, J.

W.A.Nos.244 of 2007-E & 241 of 2007-E

Dated, this the 1st day of June, 2007



JUDGMENT

H.L.Dattu,C.J. Though the petitioners are different but the cause of action and the reliefs claimed being common, the learned Single Judge has thought it to combine both the writ petitions and to pass a common order.

2. In these writ petitions the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs. They are:

(i) to direct the 3rd respondent/Kerala Financial Corporation ("Corporation" for short) to consider 'One Time Settlement' application of the petitioners without insisting for remittance of any amount as a condition precedent and inform the OTS amount to the 2nd respondent/Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation forthwith, and (ii) for a direction to the 3rd respondent to stop all recovery proceedings against the petitioners' units.

3. The petitioners in these writ petitions had borrowed certain amounts from the 3rd respondent Corporation. They have defaulted payment of the amount due to the Corporation. In view of the default committed by the petitioners, the 3rd respondent has initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioners. It is at that stage, petitioners have approached the 3rd respondent Corporation to give them the benefit under the OTS Scheme. Their applications were rejected by the Corporation on the ground that they W.A.Nos.244 & 241of 2007 - 2 - have not deposited 10% of the outstanding balance amount as required under the Scheme. For reasons best known, the petitioners do not question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Corporation.

4. Now, in these Writ Appeals, the request of the appellants before us is to direct the respondents to consider their applications for the benefit of OTS Scheme without insisting on the payment of 10% of the amounts outstanding.

5. In our opinion, the reliefs sought for by the appellants cannot be granted by us. The Corporation has evolved a scheme for One Time Settlement. Under that Scheme, certain conditions are imposed for availing the benefits of One Time Settlement for defaulters of loan amounts due to the Corporation. An autonomous body can definitely come out a scheme imposing certain conditions. Unless and until the conditions so imposed are arbitrary or illegal, this Court will not be in a position to direct that the respondents shall not insist on the payment of 10% of the amounts outstanding. In that view of the matter, the request of the appellants cannot be granted by us.

6. In so far as the second relief is concerned, the same also cannot be granted by us for the reason that unless and until the appellants' applications were favourably considered by the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent cannot be directed to inform the 2nd respondent about the One Time Settlement that has been arrived at by the Corporation. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the reliefs sought for cannot be granted.

7. Keeping in view all aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has committed no error to call for our interference and, therefore, the appeals require to be rejected and they are rejected. Ordered accordingly. W.A.Nos.244 & 241of 2007 - 3 - Consequently, I.A.No.93 of 2007 in W.A.No.244 of 2007 and I.A.No.92 of 2007 in W.A.No.241 of 2007 are also dismissed. H.L.Dattu, Chief Justice. K.T.Sankaran, Judge. vku/DK.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.