IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2936 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. GANGADHARAN.M., S/O.AYYAPPAN EZHUTHASSAN PUTHAN KALAM, ALAYANKAD, OLASSERY PO., PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (H) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 3.. KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KESTONROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR 4. EASWARDAS.V., S/O.LATE V.GOVINDANKUTTY NAIR, 11/463, HARIKKARA STREET, PALAKKAD-1, R/AT.HOUSE NO37, HARITHA NAGAR, 25/110-4, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, PALAKKAD. 5. KERALA STATE CO.OP.BANK, ERNAKULAM REGIONAL OFFICE, DORAJSWAMI IYYER ROAD, KOCHI-35. REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER. ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R3 SC FOR R5 SRI. NAGARAJ NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.2936 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner was a Director of a company by name M/s. Neelima Palakkad Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. According to the petitioner the company was floated by the 4th respondent. The company had availed of financial assistance from the 3rd respondent. Default was committed and the company's properties including 81 cents of land has been attached on a revenue recovery requisition issued by the 3rd respondent. Petitioner now submits that the properties of the company and that of the promoter of the company should be proceeded against and that he should be exonerated from coercive action. 2. I heard the standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the counsel for the 5th respondent. 3. Counsel for the 3rd respondent points out that WP(c).No.2936/09 2 being a Director of the company, petitioner also had executed personal guarantee in their favour. It is stated that as at present more than Rs.2.5 cores is due to the 3rd respondent itself, apart from other liabilities that the Company has. It is stated that they had issued requisition as against the assets of the company and also the properties of the petitioner, the 4th respondent and his wife. It is stated that the company's properties have been attached and if recovery is confined to the properties of the company alone, sufficient funds will not be recovered to satisfy their liability. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner was a Director of the company which is in default. Personal guarantee also has been executed by him. If that be so, petitioner is liable to be proceeded against and the steps taken against him cannot be faulted. 5. Initially the petitioner's contention was that unless the company's assets are proceeded against he should not be proceeded against. This apprehension of the petitioner can be WP(c).No.2936/09 3 seen to be totally baseless for the reason that the standing counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the proceedings have been initiated against the properties of the company also and that those properties have already been attached. 6. In view of this I am not in a position to accept any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Writ Petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/