IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 598 of 2008()
1. M/S.EMINENT SEA FOODS PVT.LTD.
... Petitioner
2. MAJOR (RTD) C.J.THOMAS
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.)
3. COL. (RTED) K.C.GEORGE
For Petitioner :SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.M.PATHOS MATHAI
The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :11/02/2009
O R D E R
J.B.Koshy, Ag.C.J. & P.Bhavadasan, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A.No. 598 of 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 11th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
J.B.Koshy, Ag.C.J.
Second appellant is the Managing Director of the first
appellant Company. The first respondent along with Kerala Financial
Corporation sanctioned a term loan of Rs.86 lakhs to the first
appellant. After disbursement of an initial amount of Rs.15 lakhs, the
first respondent refused to disburse the balance amount. It is the
case of the Company that since the balance amount was not paid the
Company could not implement the project in time. Now, the initial
amount of Rs.15 lakhs given is sought to be recovered through
proceedings under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations
Act. It is the case of the appellants that if the full amount of the loan
sanctioned was given, they would have started the project
immediately and would have paid the entire loan with interest in time
and it is only because of the delay in disbursing the amount the
interest is accrued.
W.A.No.598 of 2008
2
2. For the very same reason the appellants earlier
approached this Court and this Court dismissed W.A.No.141 of 1996
by Ext.P9 judgment. It was held by this Court that this Court cannot
consider the inter se rights and liabilities of the parties with regard to
the loan transaction. However, the appellants were given liberty to
challenge the recovery proceedings, if any taken, according to law.
In this writ petition also the same contentions are taken. The
appellants have availed the loan and executed document to repay
the amount. The amount was not repaid. Appellants cannot say
that unless the full amount of loan originally sanctioned is disbursed
he will not repay the loan. Therefore, the learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition.
3. We see no ground to interfere with the same.
However, if the appellants are willing for a one time settlement or re-
payment of the loan amount in instalments, it is for the appellants to
approach the respondent itself for appropriate relief. Whether waiver
of interest should be given can be considered by the Corporation.
W.A.No.598 of 2008
3
Without prejudice to the above right, this writ appeal is
dismissed.
J.B.Koshy,
(Ag. Chief Justice)
P.Bhavadasan,
(Judge)
vns