IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 29489 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.RAJAMONY, AGED 55, S/O. ABSALOM, SALOM SADAN, ONAMKODE, MEKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, PUNALAL VELLANADU. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (THE PROPRIETOR RABEKKA STEEL PRODUCTION, VALLANADU). BY ADV. SRI.THIRUMALA P.K.MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. ADV. SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, KFC FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.29489 of 2010-I ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T Revenue recovery steps initiated for realisation of the amounts due to the respondent Corporation from the petitioner, is under challenge in this writ petition. According to the petitioner he had availed a loan from the respondent to start a small scale industry, during the year 1989, by mortgaging immovable property having an extent of 4 cents, which is the industrial land. It is stated that the respondent had attached the industrial unit on 9.1.1997 and while the unit was in custody of the respondent, there occurred a theft, in which the entire machinery of the unit was taken away. It is contended that the petitioner had suffered a loss of more than Rs.4,00,000/- due to the theft, for which the respondent alone is responsible. The theft occurred in the year 2005 and the respondent has not taken any effective steps with respect to the same. The petitioner is aggrieved by coercive steps for sale of the property being W.P(C) No.29489 of 2010-I 2 pursued and the revenue recovery steps are assailed on the ground that it is barred by limitation, since three years period had elapsed from the date of attachment. 2. Ext.P3 letter produced by the petitioner indicates that 'One Time Settlement' was allowed to the petitioner during the year 2003 and that the petitioner failed to avail such opportunity. But the respondent had intimated the petitioner that if he choses to pay the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under the 'One Time Settlement', along with belated interest, the same will be accepted for settlement of the loan account. 3. In a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent it is admitted that the unit was taken over on 9.1.1997. It is mentioned that when the attachment was effected there was only five items of machinery contained in the industry and they were in a scrap condition. It is further pointed out that as per the mahazar prepared at the time of effecting attachment value of the machinery was arrived only an amount of Rs.50,000/-. It is stated that, apart from W.P(C) No.29489 of 2010-I 3 the industrial land another property having an extent of 24 cents was offered as collateral security and the respondent is entitled to proceed against such property. It is also mentioned that, with respect to the theft a police case was registered and the same is being investigated. On the basis of mortgage created and on the basis of the steps taken in between, it is contended that the claim regarding bar of limitation raised by the petitioner is not at all sustainable. However, it is once again reiterated that 'One Time Settlement' facility was allowed to the petitioner offering settlement of the loan account for a meager amount when compared with the total outstanding and it is left open to the petitioner to still approach the respondent for settlement of the account by availing such facility. 4. Under the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner regarding the challenge against the recovery steps. It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the respondent seeking settlement of the account on the basis of the offer W.P(C) No.29489 of 2010-I 4 made by the respondents. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the above observations and without prejudice to the course left open to the petitioner as stated above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab