IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36040 of 2009(Y)
1. SUNNY GEORGE, DEENA CASHEW COMPANY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY),
For Petitioner :SRI.S.ABDUL RAZZAK
For Respondent :SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, KFC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :17/02/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 36040 OF 2009
.........................................................................
Dated this the 17th February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the
recovery proceedings pursued by the respondents in the course
of realization of the amount stated as due from the petitioner.
When the matter came up for consideration before this Court,
coercive steps were intercepted on 14.12.2009 directing the
petitioner to satisfy a sum of Rs. Five lakhs on or before
16.12.2009. Subsequently, the interim order was extended
further on 22.12.2009 directing the petitioner to deposit a
further sum of Rs. Five lakhs on or before 22.01.2010.
2. The condition imposed by this Court, so as to enable
the petitioner to avail the fruits of the interim order, could not
be satisfied from the part of the petitioner. Taking note of the
submission made by the learned Counsel on 25.01.2010 that the
deposit was being effected on that day, the matter was
W.P.(C) No. 36040 OF 2009
2
adjourned further to 28.01.2010 and again to 05.02.2010 and
further to this day as well. The learned Counsel submits the
petitioner could not fully honour the commitment, as above,
except to the extent of a sum of Rs.8.5 lakhs.
3. The learned Counsel for the respondent, with reference
to the statement already filed before this Court submits that,
though the actual amount to be satisfied by the petitioner as on
28.12.2009 will come to Rs.60,82,305/-, as borne by Annexure
R1(a) statement, the respondents after considering the facts and
figures has extended the benefit of OTS, whereby the petitioner
was required to satisfy only a sum of Rs.22 lakhs. Even though
the time originally stipulated was over, the respondents granted
10 months’ more time to the petitioner to satisfy the OTS
amount. It is however stated in paragraph No.’5′ of the
statement that the Corporation is not bound to extend the
benefit of OTS for not satisfying the requirement on time. Still,
it is stated that the first respondent can revive the OTS facility
subject to approval from the Head Office, provided the petitioner
remits full OTS amount together with belated interest, court
W.P.(C) No. 36040 OF 2009
3
expenses and recovery charges.
Recording the above submission, the Writ Petition is closed,
leaving the rights and liberties between the parties as above.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk