IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 15098 of 2002(V) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. T.S. SIDHARTHA MENON, RESIDING AT THRIKARTHIKA', CHANDRA NAGAR P.O., PALAKKAD-7. 2. T.N. MENON, IN DO. DO. 3. JANAKI S. MENON, IN DO. DO. BY ADV. MR.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R), PALAKKAD. 3. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICTL MANAGER, PALAKKAD. 4. SRI SAI MAHARAJ PULP & PAPER MILLS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD. ADV. MR.V.B.UNNIRAJ, SC, KFC FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.P.PRADEEP THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.25498/2002 IN OP. NO.15098/2002 DISMISSED 27.05.2009 SD/- C.K.ABDUL RAHIM, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.3(S-64)/BC/2000 DT. 15.9.2000 ISSUED BY BOARD OF INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION, NEW DELHI. P2:- COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR (RR), PALAKKAD, BEARING NO.B9/11124/02 DT. NIL ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. -------------------------------------------- OP.No. 15098 of 2002 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against the revenue recovery steps initiated at the instance of the third respondent, the Kerala Financial Corporation (KFC) against the 4th respondent company and against the petitioners being its Directors. The contention is that the 4th respondent company was already declared as a sick industry and a scheme for revival is pending consideration before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). According to the petitioners, M/s. Canara Bank who is the major creditor had already been appointed as the operating agency and they had already submitted a revival scheme for consideration of the BIFR, in which provision for repayment of all dues of the company including dues to Kerala Financial Corporation has been dealt with. However, the contention of the petitioners is that in view of pendency of the matter before the BIFR, the recovery proceedings is unsustainable as per section 22 of the Sick OP.15098/2002 2 Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985. 2. Inspite of pendency of this writ petition, since the year 2002 onwards, the third respondent had not filed any counter affidavit. From the averments in the writ petition it is clear that the revenue recovery proceedings could not be legally pursued in view of the provisions contained in section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. 3. Therefore, I am inclined to allow this writ petition restraining the third respondent from proceeding with any further steps of revenue recovery for realisation of the amounts if any due. I do so. However this will not preclude the third respondent from approaching the appropriate authorities under the Sick Industrial Companies(Special Provisions) Act or under the provisions of the Companies Act for realisation of the amounts due from the company or from its Directors. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE Pmn/ OP.15098/2002 3