IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34400 of 2010(Y)
1. G.HARIDAS, AGED 47, S/O.T.K.GOVINDAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,
... Respondent
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KSFE, ALAPPUZHA II,
For Petitioner :SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL)
For Respondent :SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, K.S.F.E., LTD.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :22/11/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 34400 OF 2010
=====================
Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The prayer sought in the writ petition is to direct the 2nd
respondent not to invoke the bank guarantee dated 22/10/07 for
Rs.5 lakhs. According to the petitioner, he is a subscriber of four
kuries conducted by the 2nd respondent, which are all prized
kuries. It is stated that as part of security, a Bank guarantee for
Rs.5 lakhs furnished by a guarantor has been submitted. It is
stated that the Bank guarantee is valid till 21/3/2011. According
to the petitioner, although he was prompt in repayment, default
has been committed for reasons which were beyond his control.
It is stated that on account of the above, the 2nd respondent is
taking steps to encash bank guarantee and that despite a
representation made for giving one months time to pay the
amount due, 2nd respondent is proceeding with the invocation of
the bank guarantee. It is complaining of the above, the writ
petition is filed.
2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent.
According to the 2nd respondent, petitioner is a subscriber of five
WPC No. 34400/10
:2 :
chitties and that in all the chitties, default has been committed. It
is stated that, on an earlier occasion, petitioner had approached
the 1st respondent and that 1st respondent had given the
petitioner facility to make payment, which was not complied with.
It is stated that despite the above, representation is made, and in
view of the continuing default, they are not in a position to defer
further coercive proceedings against the petitioner.
3. Admittedly, petitioner is a defaulter and the bank
guarantee is given in security of repayment of the dues. In such
circumstances, if the respondents are proceeding to invoke the
bank guarantee, this Court cannot prevent the respondents from
proceeding further with the matter. Therefore, legally
respondents cannot be faulted for what it has done.
4. Be that as it may, having regard to the circumstances
pointed out, it is directed that out of Rs.5,25,000 due in respect of
the kury in relation to which the Bank guarantee has been
invoked (Chitty No.53/07 with Chittal No.6), if dues are paid by
the petitioner in two equal instalments, the first on or before
30/11/2010 and the second on or before 15/12/2010, the Bank
WPC No. 34400/10
:3 :
guarantee shall not be invoked by the respondents. It is made
clear that if any default is committed, the respondents will be
free to take any action as it deems fit.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp