IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 RP.No. 495 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.570/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------- M/S.EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., 14TH FLOOR, EXPRESS TOWERS, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021, REP. BY ITS CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER. BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS -------------------- 1. K.JOSE THOMAS, S/O.LATE C.K.THOMAS, G-245, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-36. 2. MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. THE INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD., 19 NETHAJI SUBHASH MARG, KOLKATTA-700 001, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4. M/S.SOUTH INDIA WIRE ROPES LTD., EDATHALA P.O., ALUVA, REP. BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. R1 BY ADV. SRI E.K. NANDAKUMAR R3 BY ADV. SRI P.SANJAY. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J J. ---------------------------------------- R.P.No.495 of 20101 in W.A.No. 570 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 26th day of July, 2011 ORDER Mohanan, J. This Review Petition is preferred seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 23.5.2011 in W.A.No.570 of 2011. 2. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that though the challenge in the Writ Appeal is against the interim order dated 11.4.2011 of the learned Single Judge in WPC No.5358 of 2011, in paragraph 2 of the judgment, it is stated that the challenge is against the order of another learned Single Judge of this court by which the learned Single Judge directed the Registry to post WPC 5358/11 along with CA No.623/2010 in CP No.28/2002. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the assertion contained in paragraph 7 of the judgment that, the writ petitioner had quoted higher amount for the one time settlement as per the revival scheme submitted by him, is not Rp no.495/11 2 correct. 3. When we disposed of the above Writ Appeal, in the first paragraph itself we have stated the order which sought to be challenged in the appeal and in addition to that, in paragraph 8 of our judgment, it is specifically stated about the order dated 11.4.2011 in WP(C) No. 5358 of 2011 of the learned Single Judge of this Court by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition for vacating the interim order and the interim order was extended by four months. It is also beyond any doubt or dispute that what we have stated in paragraph 2 of the judgment is only about the previous proceedings of another learned Single Judge, which culminated in the impugned order dated 11.4.2011. Therefore, there is no scope for review on the basis of the first point raised by the learned Counsel. 4. While disposing of the above writ appeal, we have also stated that we are not expressing any opinion on merit regarding the acceptability, legality, correctness or propriety of the revival scheme submitted by writ petitioner at this stage, especially when the learned Single Judge has not considered Rp no.495/11 3 the matter on merit. At the same time we have also referred to an order passed by another Division Bench of this court and according to us, the order of the learned Single is in tune with the above direction of the Division Bench. It is also held that, considering the fact that the petitioner has already spent a substantial amount viz., 75% of the bid amount and the legal questions raised, we are of the opinion that the writ petition as well as the revival scheme preferred by the first respondent/the petitioner requires to be considered at the earliest. With the above observation, but without entering into the merits of the contentions raised by the parties, we relegated the appellant to raise his contentions before the company court. However, we have no hesitation to clarify that the assertion contained in paragraph 7 of our judgment, is not based upon any finding on merit but we have just referred the assertion made by the writ petitioner that, amount quoted by himself is the higher amount for settlement as per the revival scheme submitted by him. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, we find no reason to review the judgment dated 23.5.2011 in Rp no.495/11 4 W.A.No.570 of 2011. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, Judge. Kvm/- Rp no.495/11 5