IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18985 of 2010(W)
1. THOMAS KOSHY,KALAPPILA HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. GEORGE LUKKOSE,
Vs
1. THE K.S.F.E.LIMITED,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR).,
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,K.S.F.E.LIMITED,
4. SRI.NOBLE, KALAPPILA VEEDU,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent :SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, KSFE, LTD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :02/07/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P. (C) No. 18985 of 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 2nd day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioners, who were the guarantors to a chitty transaction
prized in favour of the 4th respondent, are before this Court challenging
the steps taken by the third respondent against the petitioners for
recovery of the sum stated as due from the 4th respondent. The case of
the petitioners is that, in spite of pointing out the actual facts and
figures with regard to the assets of the principal debtor i.e 4th
respondent, by filing Ext.P3 representation, sent by registered post,
absolutely no action has been taken by the third respondent against the
4th respondent, while steps are being pursued against the petitioners,
which made the petitioners to approach this Court.
2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent
KSFE submits that, they have already filed a statement before this
Court (yet to form part of the records) pointing out that, Ext.P3
representation has not been obtained to the concerned respondent,
though the postal receipt dated 13.4.2010 stands affixed on the face
page of Ext.P3. The learned standing counsel further submits that, the
particulars of the properties stated as owned, possessed and enjoyed
by the 4th respondent are not brought to the notice of the respondents
by the petitioners and on furnishing the relevant particulars in black and
W.P. (C) No. 18985 of 2010
: 2 :
white terms, appropriate proceedings will be taken against the 4th
respondent, before proceeding with further steps against the
petitioners. Submission as above is recorded.
3. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to file proper
representation, pointing out the actual facts and figures, particularly as
to the assets/properties owned by the 4th respondent before the 3rd
respondent, on which event, the same shall be considered and
appropriate orders shall be passed thereon and the outcome shall be
let known to the petitioners before proceeding with further steps against
the petitioners.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd