IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1994 of 2008()
1. C.KHALID, PALAKKIL MEDICAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR), HOSDURG,
3. M/S.KANDCO POLYMERS (P) LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.SIJI ANTONY
For Respondent :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :21/10/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.1994 of 2008-E
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 21st day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.3658 of 2008 dated 21st May,
2008.
2. This is the third round of litigation by the petitioner and
in the earlier two occasions he had called in question the revenue
recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents for recovery of the
amounts due to them. Those writ petitions came to be withdrawn by the
petitioner without seeking permission of this Court to approach this
Court, if need arises in future.
3. In the third round of litigation the petitioner once over
again calls in question the legality or otherwise of the revenue recovery
proceedings initiated by the respondents for realisation of the amounts
due to them.
4. The primary contention that was canvassed before the
learned Single Judge was that the petitioner was only a Director and he
ceased to be the Director some time in the year 1997, and, therefore, no
W.A.No.1994/2008 -2-
proceedings could have been taken by the respondents against him.
5. Respondents had brought to the notice of the learned
Single Judge that the petitioner was not just the Director of the
Company, but also had offered personal guarantee at the time of
disbursement of the loan by the first respondent financial institution to
the Company.
6. By the revenue recovery proceedings, respondents are
trying to enforce the personal guarantee that was offered by the
petitioner. Keeping this aspect of the matter in view, the learned Single
Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has brought
to our notice the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of
Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment
Corporation of U.P.Ltd. and Others { (2004) 6 SCC 758}. In the said
decision the Apex Court was considering the provisions of U.P.Act and
while doing so, the learned Judges have observed that, in view of the
statutory provisions prevailing in the U.P.Act, the financial institutions
should first proceed against the principal debtor and it is only thereafter
should proceed against the guarantor.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant is not in a
W.A.No.1994/2008 -3-
position to tell us whether the provisions of the Revenue Recovery
proceedings is in pari materia with the provisions of the U.P.Act, and,
therefore, in our opinion, the decision of the Apex Court would not
come to the aid of the appellant.
9. In view of the above, the writ appeal requires to be
rejected and it is rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
MS