IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 763 of 2002(N) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ S. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O. K. SANTHAKUMARAMENON, SOWBHAGYA, PIPE LINE ROAD, KOCHI-33. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, CARMEL BUILDINGS, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.P. PRADEEP FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.JIMMY GEORGE FOR R.1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P NO.763 OF2002 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: A photocopy of the order in C.P.4/98, dated 20.3.2001. Ext.P2: A photocopy of the letter send to the 1 st respondent on 20.9.2000. Ext.P3: The photocopy of the letter send to the 1 st respondent, dated 21.5.2001. Ext.P4: The photocopy of the acknowledgment card. Ext.P5: The photocopy of the stay order in CMP6368/01 in O.P 38786/2001. Ext.P6: The photocopy of the Revenue Recovery Notice. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /True Copy/ P.A TO JUDGE SPC C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ---------------------------- O.PNo.763 OF 2002 ------------------------- DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF MAY, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ 1. The challenge in this writ petition is against the Revenue Recovery steps initiated as evidenced by Ext.P6 against the petitioner for realisation of an amount of Rs.91,453/-, being arrears of rent due to Greater Cochin development Authority, the 1st respondent herein. According to the petitioner he was only the Chief Executive of a company namely M/s.Trend Designs Ltd., which is now under liquidation, by virtue of Ext.P1, judgment of the company court in CP No.4/98 dated 20-3-2001. The above said company was the occupant of Room No.OS-42 in the Marine Drive commercial shopping complex owned by G.C.D.A . Eventhough the said Room was vacated in the year 2000, now recovery steps have been initiated at the instance of G.C.D.A to realise the amount of rent arrears. According to the petitioner the intimation regarding winding up of the company was duly sent to OP.No.763/2002 2 the G.C.D.A as per Ext.P3, as early as in the year 2001 itself, and it was received by G.C.D.A as evidenced from Ext.P4 postal acknowledgment. But now Ext.P6 revenue recovery notice has been issued, proceeding recovery steps against the petitioner, personally. The petitioner is not liable for the arrears if any due from the company under liquidation, is the contention. 2. The 1st respondent had filed counter affidavit in which it is admitted that the office space was allotted to M/S.Trendsetter Designs Ltd.,which is a company incorporated. It is stated that the petitioner was the signatory to the lease agreement on behalf of the company. It is admitted that the premises had already been surrendered. The contention of the 1st respondent is that the petitioner being the chief executive officer of the company and signatory to the lease agreement, is bound to pay the arrears. 3. There is no dispute that the company, M/s Trendsetter Designs Ltd., is now undergoing liquidation proceedings. Hence the proceedings initiated under the revenue recovery Act cannot be pursued, at any rate. The question raised OP.No.763/2002 3 is whether the petitioner is personally liable for the default made by the company. According to the petitioner he is only an employee of the company, being its chief executive. Eventhough the 1st respondent contents that the petitioner being a Director of the company is liable to pay the amounts, the petitioner stoutly denied such an allegation. Further it is argued that even assuming that he is a Director, he cannot be held liable personally. In support of this the petitioner had cited judgment of this court in Nishad Patel Vs State of kerala,(1998(2) KLT793). But the above decision pertains to interpretation of the provisions in the Sales Tax Act. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case it is not necessary to resolve the said controversy. 4. In view of the admitted facts that the company who was the lessee is under liquidation, the 1st respondent can only approach the appropriate forum under the provisions of the Companies Act for realising the amounts if any due from the company. The revenue recovery steps initiated against the petitioner is not at all sustainable, without resorting to such a recourse. Hence Ext.P6 is squashed. It is made clear that the 1st OP.No.763/2002 4 respondent is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum under the provisions of the Companies Act in order to realise amounts if any due from the company. The writ petition is disposed as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. spc