IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.No. 67 of 2011 ( ) --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.31613/2009 ---------------------------- REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/3RD RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1,2 AND 4 TO 7: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. I.F.C.I.(INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA) I.F.C.I. TOWERS, 61 NEHRU PALACE, NEW DELHI-110 019, REP. BY R. GOVINDAN, MANAGER (LAW). 2. TRAVANCORE RAYONS LTD., RAYONPURAM, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. INDIAN BANK(HQ), 66, RAJAJI SALAI,CHENNAI-600 001. 4. I.D.B.I.(INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA), 115, ANNA SALAI,SAIDAPT,CHENNAI-600 015. 5. I.C.I.C.I. BANK LTD.,(INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD), NO.1 CENOTAPH ROAD, CHENNAI-600 015 6. INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT BANK OF INDIA (INDUSTRIAL RECONSTRUCTION BANK OF INDIA) 19, NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, P.B.NO.16, CALCUTTA-700 001. 7. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, YOGAKSHEMA, JEEVAN BEEMA MARG, MUMBAI-400 020. R1 BY SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.) ADV. SRI.SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR SRI.K.P.SUDHEER R4 BY ADV.SMT.MARIAM MATHAI SRI.SAJI VARGHESE R7 BY ADV.SRI.S.EASWARAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-12-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts R.P.NO.67/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX A1 COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 16/06/2004 ANNEX A2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2008 ANNEX A3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/07/2009 ANNEX A4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. ANNEX A5 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE RESIDENT COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI DATED 18/11/2011 ANNEX A6 COPY OF THE RECORDINGS OF THE MEETING ANNEX A7 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FINANCE (EXPENDITURE), BANKING AND INSURANCE),GOVERNMENT OF IND TO THE HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX R1(A) COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY GOVERNMENT IN O.A.NO.265/2004 ANNEX R1(B) COPY OF THE ADDL WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY GOVERNMENT IN O.A.NO.265/2004. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts C.K. ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P No. 67 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011 J U D G M E N T The writ petition was filed by a financial institution which is a creditor of the 1st respondent company (2nd respondent in the Review Petition). The prayer in the writ petition was for a direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam for an early disposal of OA No.265/2004. When the writ petition was posted for hearing it was submitted on behalf of the State Government that a decision was arrived to take over the 1st respondent company and to settle its liabilities in terms of a proposed legislation. On that basis it was submitted that the Government had requested for adjournment of the matter before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. This court found that, in the matter pending befroe the DRT, the creditor is seeking only a declaration settling the liabilities arising out of the financial transaction involved. But execution of order if any passed by DRT will depend on provisions of other statutes. Therefore it was found that the disposal of the matter by the Debts Recovery R.P No.67/2011 -2- Trinunal will not interdict with any steps which will betaken by the Government. On that premise the Debts Recovery Tribunal was directed to dispose of O.A. No.265/2004 with a time limit stipulated. 2. In this Review Petition, it is stated that, the Government is taking all earnest efforts to rehabilitate the 1st respondent company and an Ordinance have formulated an ordinance taking over of the 1st respondent company by way of legislation, and the said ordinance is now pending before the Central Government awaiting concurrence. On the basis of such facts the dispute pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal will be settled under the scheme for rehabilitation 3. It is pointed out that a meeting was arranged by the State Government with various financial institutions, who had lent money to the 1st respondent company, and consensus was already arrived with respect to certain financial institutions. However, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner (1st respondent in the Review Petition) pointed out that they were not parties to any such R.P No.67/2011 -3- settlement. 4. As observed above, it is already clarified in the judgment that pronouncement of orders by the Debts Recovery Tribunal will not stand in the way of the State Government initiating rehabilitation steps. I make it further clear that if the Government is intending to take over the company, such steps may not be hindered in any manner by the decision of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Further, the Government will be at liberty to settle claims of the writ petitioner in an amicable manner, either before pronouncement of the judgment by the Debts Recovery Tribunal or thereafter at any stage. 5. However, I do not find any ground to review the judgment in any manner by holding proceedings which is now pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. Hence the Review Petition is dismissed subject to the above observation. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE AMG