IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 19951 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M.D.JOSE, 70 YEARS MOONJELY HOUSE, SNEHA BHAVAN MURIYAD PO., THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. M/S.MICROWAVE PRODUCTS (INDIA) LTD., MICRO NAGAR, PUTHAMNCHIRA PO., THRISSUR REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR THACHERIAL HOUSE, NADUVATHUR NAGAR, CHERTHALA, ALLEPPEY. 2. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, KSEB ELECTRICAL DIVISION, IRINJALAKUDA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK IRINJALAKUDA. 4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUM, IRINJALAKUDA. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R3 SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.) FOR R1 SRI.S.SHARAN FOR R1 R2 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 19951/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 35121/07 DTD. 1.1.2008. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 3021/08 DTD. 28.2.2008. EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 17414/08 DTD. 11.6.2008. EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 22/2/2008 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER BY 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE RR NOTICE DTD. 22.2.2008 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL RETURNS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES DATED 24.4.2000 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 19951 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is proceeded against for recovery of the amounts due on the basis of Exts.P4 and P5. Case of the petitioner is that petitioner was a shareholder of the first respondent Company and from 1994 petitioner has no connection with the first respondent Company as it has been sold. 2. According to the Board, the petitioner is the consumer. Today when the matter came up, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will pay the amount and that petitioner will prefer claim before the second respondent. Counsel for the petitioner seeks three weeks time to pay the amount due. 3. I heard learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the first respondent also. Proceedings against the petitioner will be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks in order to enable the petitioner to pay the amount due as per Exts.P4 and P5. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb