IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 803 of 2010(A) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.SUNDEV MARKETING, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI - 682020, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR. ARUN K.R.. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.RAJA KANNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,11ND CIRCLE, THRIPUNITHURA. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONR OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (TAXES), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 803 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following reliefs as prayed for in the Writ Petition. i) Call for the records leading to Exts.P5 stay order and P8 time extension order and quash the same to the extent it directs furnishing of sufficient security bond for granting of stay. ii) Grant a stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 order of the 1st respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition (civil). Iii) Direct the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to furnish security bond by way of solvent sureties for the balance amount demanded instead of furnishing sufficient security bond within a time limit to be prescribed by this Honourable Court and to hear and dispose of Ext.P3 appeal as expeditiously as possible. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition imposed by the Appellate Authority vide Ext.P7, directing the petitioner to deposit 40% of the disputed liability, i.e., forming the first limb of the condition has already been satisfied. The actual grievance is against the second limb, whereby the petitioner is directed to furnish ‘security bond’ for the balance amount. WP(C) No.803/2010 2 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the petitioner has already satisfied 40% of the disputed liability as a condition pre-requisite to avail the fruits of the interim order, this Court finds that the petitioner could be permitted to furnish security in respect of the balance amount by way of ‘solvent sureties’, in place of 'security bond' insisted by the 2nd respondent. This shall be satisfied by the petitioner within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Subject to the above, Exts.P5 and P8 will stand varied/modified and no recovery steps shall be pursued in respect of the balance amount on satisfying the requirement by furnishing ‘solvent sureties’ in respect of the remaining 60% of the disputed liability. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc