IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 4207 of 2009(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SALEENA.A., W/O.SALIM, 33 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S.PARIPOORNA FOOD PRODUCTS, SHAMEENA MANZIL, THANDALODE, MUDAPPALLUR PO., ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. 2. A.SALIM, SHAMEENA MANZIL, THANDALODE MUDAPPALLUR PO., ALATHUR TALUK PALAKKAD BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. FEDERAL BANK LTD., REP. BY THE CHIEF MANAGER, (AUTHORISED OFFICER) REGIONAL OFFICE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR. 2. MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., VADAKKANCHERRY BRANCH, PALAKKAD. 3. GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) FOR R1,2 SRI.LAWRENCE D'CUNHA FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 4207 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF MARCH, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner availed a loan from the first respondent for an SSI unit. That loan was availed through the second respondent, branch. The petitioner's husband offered collateral security for that loan. Ext.R1(b) produced along with the additional counter affidavit is the valuation report of the security property. That includes an 800 sq.feet factory building constructed in motor and cement. The said two acres are also planted with rubber. Predominantly it cannot therefore be treated purely as an agricultural land. The small scale unit of the petitioner is house in that building. 2. With the aforesaid, the petitioner applied to the Industries Extensional Officer of the Taluk Industries office for certain benefits on the premise that the petitioner's unit falls within the sweep of certain scheme for units which could be classified as sick small scale industry. The petitioner does not find room to seriously dispute the stand of the bank that the WP(C) 4207 OF 2009 2 petitioner's unit is still functioning and production activity is going on. The plea of the petitioner is that her unit is sick in terms of some of the yardsticks prescribed in terms of the regulations for assistance. Viewed in that context, the request of the Industries Extensional Officer to the bank as contained in Ext.P1 is only to forward a No Objection Certificate for considering the case of the petitioner as a small scale industrial unit entitled to certain benefits for reviving it to the optimum standard. This does not necessarily mean that the bank concedes to any extent its entitlement to be paid the amounts due under the terms of the contract and also its rights to enforce recovery, if called for. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, it is ordered that following Ext.P1, the bank will issue No objection Certificate to the petitioner to process her application for assistance as stated in Ext.P1, without prejudice to the right of the bank to insist on payments, that are due to the bank in terms of the existing contract between the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2 and without prejudice to the right of the bank to enforce recovery, if there is default in terms of those terms of contract. It is clarified that even if revival scheme provides any benefit to the petitioner, WP(C) 4207 OF 2009 3 that cannot impair the right of the bank to recover as aforesaid, since the specific stand of the bank that the petitioner's unit is, according to it, not sick, is not found against herein. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/1/4