IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 RP.No. 1104 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.14034/2005 Dated 23/07/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SANHAY GUPTA, DOOR NO. 41/3089, ST. VINCENT ROAD, ERNAKULAM,NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.285, KRIPA HOUSE, CHANDRA NAGAR P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN SRI.A.R.EASWAR LAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), DERNAKULAM. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE 3. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT, CORPORATION VELLAYAMBALAM THRIUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. PRIMA INDUSTRIES LTD., 31/536 PRIMA HOUSE, S.KALAMASSERY, COCHIN 682 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. R1&2 BY G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE, SC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... R.P. No.1104 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No.14034 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008. ORDER Review petitioner availed loan from third respondent. Along with security, shares of the company promoted by the petitioner were issued to third respondent under agreement for buy-back by the petitioner. When petitioner defaulted payment of the loan availed from third respondent, they initiated revenue recovery proceedings against which the W.P. was filed on the ground that shares allotted to the creditor organisation namely, third respondent, were not sold. When the W.P. came up for hearing before this court, third respondent informed that shares were sold and debt remains unpaid. Therefore, this court closed the W.P. leaving freedom to the third respondent to proceed for recovery. 2. Review Petition is now filed stating that sale of shares allotted to third respondent was made in violation of terms of allotment and agreement between petitioner and the third respondent. I do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment in review because if there is breach of contract between petitioner and the third respondent, remedy is not filing writ petition in this court. Review Petition is therefore dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge