IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1613 of 2011() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5177/2005 Dated 24/08/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- THE COMMONWEALTH TRUST(INDIA)LTD., SOUTH MANANCHIRA ROAD,KOZHIKODE-673001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR-IN-CHARGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT NO.11 OF W.P. ------------------------------------------------------------------ THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT TRAVEL & TOURISM DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY & CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION(KTDS)LTD.NO.2882. BY ADV.SRI.T.A.SHAJI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA.No. 1613 of 2011() APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE -A: COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.8.2005. ANNEXURE-B: COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE cOURT IN W.A.NO.1956 OF 2005. ANNEXURE-C: COPY OF ORDER DATED 19.6.2008. ANNEXURE-D: COPY OF ORDER DATED 4.2.2009. ANNEXURE-E: COPY OF ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.A.NO.4789 OF 2009 IN W.P(C).NO.5177 OF 2005. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1613 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The appeal is directed against an order dated 24.8.2011 in I.A.No 8697 of 2011 in W.P(C).No.5177 of 2005. It is not in dispute that one of the properties of the appellant was agreed to be purchased by the respondent through the intervention of the Court in order to create funds to the appellant to discharge its liability of provident fund. In that process, the respondent herein paid Rs.4,61,25,000/- (rupees four crores sixtyone lakhs twentyfive thousand) towards the entire sale consideration. In spite of payment of the sale consideration for the purchase of 45 cents of land, there was enormous delay, more than 3 years in executing a sale deed in favour of the respondent. According to the appellant, it was for the reasons beyond its control, as they WA.1613/11 2 were not able to demarcate 45 cents of property to be sold to the respondent. Apparently, 50% of the sale consideration was paid to the provident fund to discharge the liability of the appellant and the rest of the money was kept in the fixed deposit. 2. It is also not in dispute that the respondents had to raise this Rs.4,61,25,000/- by way of loan from a Co-operative Bank and it had to pay almost Rs.1.10 crores as interest on the amount borrowed by them. On an earlier occasion, when the appellant sought for extension of time to execute the sale deed, a conditional order came to be made by the learned Single Judge that in case the appellant fails to execute the sale deed within the time fixed by the court, the appellant has to pay interest. This order of the learned Single Judge was never challenged by the appellant for the reasons best known to it. However, an application for modification of the said order seems to be in I.A.No.7442 of 2009 was filed and the same is pending. 3. The fact remains, the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration all the existing facts, especially the fact that the respondent has borrowed the money and the appellant had kept 50% of the sale consideration in a fixed deposit and earned certain interest on the said amount, directed the appellants to pay WA.1613/11 3 Rs.55,00,000/- (rupees fiftyfive lakhs) as interest that would have been earned by him, provided the sale amount was kept in a bank in a fixed deposit. 4. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the said order as the appellant, after taking entire sale consideration, was not able to allow the respondents to make use of the property though the appellant has made use of the sale consideration paid by the respondent. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE vgs