M/S.A.M.Body Builders vs The Revenue Recovery Tahsildar

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16430 of 2009(W)


1. M/S.A.M.BODY BUILDERS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE REVENUE RECOVERY TAHSILDAR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISA-

3. THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,KOLLAM BRANCH.

4. THE GENERAL MANAGER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.V.SOHAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR,SC,EPF ORGN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :/  /

 O R D E R
                  P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                     W.P. (C) No. 16430 of 2009
                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                 Dated, this the 29th day of July, 2009

                              JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that,

the Industrial Unit of the petitioner having met with the adverse

circumstances, is on the process of revival and necessary application

had already been preferred before the 4th respondent, as evident from

Ext.P6 certificate dated 16.12.2008 issued by the said respondent. The

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the factum of borrowal

of loan from the 3rd respondent Bank, is of course true, but unless and

until the petitioner unit is permitted to be revived, the liability towards

the Bank and others cannot be satisfied and once such revival is made

possible with the intervention of the 4th respondent, it is stated that

everything can be cleared accordingly.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank

submits that, the petitioner was already extended the benefit of ‘OTS’ to

have it cleared on or before the 31st March, 2009, by remitting a sum of

Rs. 325 lakhs, which facility was however not availed by the petitioner.

3. The learned Government Pleader submits on the basis of

instruction stated as received from the 4th respondent, that even though

notice was issued to the petitioner and all concerned, to have a hearing

in connection with the steps for revival, nobody turned up in the said

WP (C) No. 16430 of 2009
: 2 :

meeting held on 14.1.02009, which submission is not rebutted from the

part of the petitioner. However, in view of the submission made by the

learned Government Pleader that the 4th respondent will consider the

matter again, if the petitioner earnestly desires to prosecute the same

and also taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for

the petitioner that he will appear before the 4th respondent along with

proper application and proposal in this regard with notice to the Bank,

the petitioner is permitted to file necessary application along with all the

relevant testimonials before the 4th respondent within a period of 2

weeks and on such an event, the same shall be considered and

disposed of, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. The

steps in this regard shall be finalized as expeditiously as possible, at

any rate, within two months from today.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

kmd