IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 WA.No.1994 of 2008 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.3658/2008 Dated 21/05/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ C.KHALID, PALAKKIL MEDICAL, MANIKOTH PO., KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.SIJI ANTONY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., CHOICE TOWERS, MANORAMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-682016. REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER (LEGAL). 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY), HOSDURG, 3. M/S.KANDCO POLYMERS (P) LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE, NILESWAR, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) SRI.SAJI VARGHESE. SMT.MARIAM MATHAI. R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PELADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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 Those writ petitions came to be withdrawn by the petitioner without seeking permission of this Court to approach this Court, if need arises in future. 3.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