IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23027 of 2003(N)
1. RAJASREE P.K., W/O. KANAKA PARAMBIL
... Petitioner
2. GOPAN.K.S., KANAKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), THRISSUR TALUK,
3. THE MANAGER, DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.,
4. MR. DEVADAS.M., MANAGING PARTNER,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.CHACKO
For Respondent :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN,SC,DHANALAKSHMI BAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :24/07/2008
O R D E R
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 23027 OF 2003
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of
loan availed by them from the third respondent under PMRY Scheme
for starting an industry. The case of the petitioners is that the amount
was directly paid by the third respondent to fourth respondent for
supply of machinery for starting the industry. However, after
collecting the amount, fourth respondent did snot supply machinery, is
the case of the petitioners. The case of the fourth respondent is that
repayment was made in instalments and Ext.R4(a) is produced which is
receipt for repayment of Rs. 20,000/- to the second petitioner.
However, second petitioner denied having received the amount from
the fourth respondent. Counsel for the third respondent rightly
submitted that borrower being petitioners, recovery is to be made from
them. Even though DD was taken in the name of the fourth respondent
at the request of petitioners, contract for purchase of machinery is
between the petitioners and fourth respondent. Obviously there is no
2
privity of contract between third and fourth respondents and for
contractual violation by the fourth respondent, the remedy is for the
petitioners and not for third respondent. It is also conceded that
petitioners have approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
and obtained award against the fourth respondent, which they are free
to execute. However, since recovery is permissible from petitioners
and guarantors, W.P. is disposed of directing the second respondent to
proceed for recovery against the petitioners if payment is not made. As
already stated, petitioners are free to execute the award against the
fourth respondent. It will be open to the petitioner to go for settlement
with the Bank and if payment is offered within a reasonable time, bank
will give incentives because petitioners could not start the industry.
(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge
kk
3