IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34323 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.MAHADEVAN PILLAI, 37/1384, ANUGRAHA, NEAR PARK LAND APARTMENTS, KALOOR- KADAVANTHRA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-17. (PROPRIETOR, M/S.UNIVERSAL CONCEPTS, PACHAMKULAM, PERINGALA P.O., KAYAMKULAM). BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, KFC FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 34323/2009. -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF MAHASSAR PREPARED BY DY. TAHSILDAR. EXT.P2 JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO. 17182/1992. EXT.P3 JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO. 1081/1997. EXT.P4 ORDER DT. 4-5-1998 IN S.L.P.NO. 7650/1998. EXT.P5 ODER DT. 12-12-1996 IN C.M.P.6665/94 IN O.P. 17182/1992. EXT.P6 PROPOSAL DT. 9-10-2003. EXT.P7 LETTER DT. 13-3-2009. EXT.P8 RECEIPT DT. 25-3-2009. EXT.P9 RECEIPT DT. 29-5-2009. EXT.P10 LETTER DT. 29-5-2009. EXT.P11 RECEIPT DT. 7-10-2009. EXT.P12 RECEIPT DT. 30-5-2009. EXT.P13 MAHASAR DT. 10-7-2009. EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF NON LIABILITY CERTIFICATE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: --------------------------------------- EXT.R3(A) MAHAZAR D. 4-2-1999. EXT.R3(B) LETTER DT. 26-3-1986 EXT.R3(C) COVERING LETTER DT. 28-3-06. EXT.R3(D) UNDERTAKING DT. 11-12-1989. EXT.R3(E) PROCEEDINGS DT. 6-7-1998. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 34323 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 25th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an entrepreneur, who started a SSI unit, namely, M/s. Universal Concepts, Kayamkulam. For setting up of the unit, he borrowed money from the Kerala Financial Corporation. He committed default in repayment of the loan amount. A series of litigation ensued. Ultimately, availing of the benefit of one time settlement, the petitioner settled the loan account. The petitioner is now aggrieved by non-return of title deeds deposited as security for the repayment of the loan amount as also certain machinery allegedly taken over, pursuant to revenue recovery proceedings. The petitioner now submits that insofar as the OTS amounts have been paid, there is no justification for the KFC to retain the title deeds of the properties belonging to the petitioner, which have been deposited with the KFC as security for due repayment of the loan amount. 2. The initial objection raised by the KFC was that the petitioner has not produced 'no objection certificate' from the District Industries Centre, which is a must for releasing the title deeds. Now, it is admitted that NOC has also been produced. But, the learned counsel for the KFC submits that this can only be subject to the last condition in Ext. P7 to the effect that the petitioner should withdraw all cases filed and should also refrain from filing any cases against the KFC. 3. After hearing, I do not think that the KFC can put such a condition which is against public policy. Now that all other conditions have been satisfied, it is only proper that the KFC should return the title deeds deposited with the KFC by the petitioner for due repayment of the loan amounts. This shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In respect of the other claims regarding return of machinery etc., W.P.C. No. 34323/2009. -: 2 :- insofar as there are serious disputes as to whether the KFC is in custody of the same, the petitioner has to take recourse to his remedy before the appropriate forum where the petitioner can adduce evidence in support of his claim. That remedy of the petitioner is left open. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/