IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12306 of 2006(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VIJAYA BANK, KOLLAM BRANCH, VADAYATTUKOTTI ROAD, CHAMAKKADA, KOLLAM-691 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, WHO IS THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S. KING FISHERIES LIMITED, NEENDAKARA P.O., KOLLAM-691 582. 2. SHAJI B.JOHN, VAYALIL HOUSE, NEAR SANKER'S HOSPITAL, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. SHELA JAMES, VAYALIL HOUSE, NEAR SANKER'S HOSPITAL, KOLLAM-691 001. 4. ANNAMMA B.JOHN, VAYALIL HOUSE, NEAR SANKER'S HOSPITAL, KOLLAM-691 001. 5. MATHEW B.JOHN, VAYALIL HOUSE, NEAR SANKER'S HOSPITAL, KOLLAM-691 001. 6. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW FOR R4,R5. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 26.4.2006 ISSUED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 12306 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT W.P.C. is filed by the petitioner which is creditor bank stating that it advanced loans to respondents 1 to 5. According to the petitioner Official Liquidator has no authority to take over the property of the company under liquidation in preference to the claim of the petitioner under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. This Court granted stay against proceedings in this WPC filed by the Bank. It is now conceded that application for liquidation is withdrawn. Consequently, DRT is free to proceed based on the application filed by the Bank. It is stated by counsel for the first respondent that application filed by the Bank is dismissed by the DRT for default. I do not think there was any need for the petitioner to pursue the matter before the DRT when this WPC was pending and the matter was under stay. Therefore there will be direction to the DRT to restore the application filed by the petitioner and proceed with the matter. W.P.C. is disposed of as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 2