IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10018 of 2008(P) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M/S. INSTRANS ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING PVT. LTD. PLOT NO 7,SADARMANGALA INDUSTRIAL AREA, WHITEFIELD ROAD,BANGALORE-560048. REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRIT.R.MOHANAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, TRIVANDRUM MAIN BRANCH, PB.NO 22, STATUE, M.G.ROAD TRIVANDRUM. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. M/S. THE ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES LTD., SWITCHGEAR DIVISION, MANNAR PO, ALAPPUZHA DIST. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 3. M/S THE ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES LTD.NO.1 CERAMIC FACTORY ROAD, KUNDARA 681 501. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 BY SRI.SAJI VARGHESE, SC , SBI R2 & R3 SRI. E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.10018 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 31st day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner is a creditor of respondents 2 and 3, a Company which faced proceedings before the BIFR and AAIFR. It is stated that the State Bank of Travancore which was appointed as the operating agency was replaced by another group and that those matters are pending consideration before the High Courts. The petitioner requests for a direction to release the amounts due to it and that the non-payment is due to the presence of Ext.P4 order of this Court and other aspects stated in Ext.P3. By Ext.P4, all that this Court appears to have done is to permit the petitioners therein to deposit the amounts with the State Bank of Travancore in the name of the company and such WPC10018/2008 -:2:- amounts were not to be dealt with until further orders. A perusal of Ext.P3 would clearly show that the proceedings under the SIC Act has not ended thereby taking off the effect of Section 22(1) of that Act. 2. A money claim, if at all entertained in writ jurisdiction, cannot be pushed through, particularly when Section 22(1) is a clear interdiction against proceedings for recovery in relation to institutions governed by the provisions of that Act. Writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to remedies, if any, that may be available to the petitioner for recovery of the amounts, in accordance with law and for any direction accordingly. WPC10018/2008 -:3:- Learned counsel for the petitioner also seeks an opportunity to mention the matter before the AAIFR. That is a matter which could be taken before the AAIFR by the petitioner and no indulgence of this Court is required for that. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl. 1-4-2008