IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31169 of 2010(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, NIRMALYAM, TC 38/1492(1), J.P.NAGAR-18, KOTHALAM ROAD, WEST FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 008. 2. M.JANARDHANAN NAIR, GAYATHRI, KULASEKHARAM, KODUNGANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. R.BALAKRISHNAN, SAI JYOSNA, TC 5/1857, PEROORKADA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. P.K.ASOKAN, FLAT NO.01, SNTC BUILDING, KOORKENCHERRY,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. M.V.THOMAS, PLOT NO.5, NEHRU NAGAR, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR-680 007. 6. P.ARAVINDAKSHAN, 17/37(2), PARK AVENUE, NEAR TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD. 7. A.RAJAN, HEBBAR BROTHERS COMPOUND, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD-678 007. 8. SQN. LDR. K.RAMAKRISHNAN, CENTRE COURT, HOSUR ROAD, NEAR AIRTEL TOWER, COIMBATORE-641 018. (PETITIONERS 2 TO 8 ARE REP.BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI. V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN). BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SMT.NITA.N.S., SRI.S.SUJIN. Kss ..2/- ..2.... WPC.NO.31169/2010 U RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (KSIDC) - REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER & SECRETARY, KESTON ROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. 2. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.), OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR. 5. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.), OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, MALAPPURAM. 6. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.), OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD. 7. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), TALUK OFFICE, MANJERI. 9. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.),THRISSUR. 11. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THRISSUR. 12. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 13. M/S. ELECRA SUBSTRATES LTD., ERAVIMANGALAM, PERINTHALMANNA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE,SC, KSIDC SMT.MARIAM MATHAI. R2 BY ADV. SRI. A.A. ABUL HASSAN, SC, KFC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31169 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The petitioners are Directors of a company which is respondent No.13 in this writ petition. The company had availed loans from respondents 1 and 2, and also from other financial institutions. Admittedly the petitioners are guarantors with respect to loans availed from respondents 1 and 2 Corporations. It is stated that they have executed personal guarantee documents in this regard, during the year 1986-1987. It is also admitted that some of the Directors had renewed personal guarantee during the year 1985-1996. According to the petitioners, none of them have renewed personal guarantee subsequent to the year 1996. 2. Consequent to default committed in repayment of loan amounts availed from respondents 1 and 2, steps for recovery under the provisions of the W.P.(C).31169/10-U -2- Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 was initiated on issuing Ext.P2 to P16 demand notices. Various notices were issued in this regard by respondents 1 and 2 as well. It is revealed that, challenging the revenue recovery steps initiated, the petitioners have approached this court earlier by filing WP (C).No.27178/2006, raising the ground that the proceedings initiated is barred by limitation as against the petitioners. The above writ petition was dismissed by this court reserving rights of the petitioners to approach the competent civil courts seeking appropriate reliefs. The matter was taken up in writ appeal of the issue agitated. Against decision of the Single Judge the petitioners filed writ appeal and Ext.P26 is the judgment passed in W.A.No.284/2007. On considering provisions contained in Section 34(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the Division Bench observed that the authority concerned is bound to consider objections if any raised against the recovery steps and the petitioners are at liberty to raise such objections. It is further observed that the statute W.P.(C).31169/10-U -3- provided revisional remedies as contemplated under Section 83(1) & (2) against the decision of the authority concerned. Therefore leaving permission to the petitioners to raise objections before the Tahsildar and with a direction to the Tahsildar to consider such objections, the writ petition was disposed of. The Tahsildar was also directed to keep in abeyance further recovery steps, till such decision is taken. 3. Ext.P27 is the objection submitted by the petitioners pursuant to the directions in the judgment in the writ appeal. In Ext.P28 decision, the Tahsildar found that the objections raised against the recovery steps are not legally sustainable. Hence the objections were rejected and the petitioners were directed to remit the dues. Against Ext.P28 the petitioners filed revision petition before the 12th respondent, the Land Revenue Commissioner, under Section 83(1) of the Revenue Recovery Act. Ext.P29 is the revision petition. Along with the revision petition they also filed a stay petition. It is submitted that Ext.P29 revision W.P.(C).31169/10-U -4- petition and the accompanying application for stay ares now pending consideration and disposal before the 12th respondent. Grievance of the petitioners is that during pendency of the revision petition now coercive steps of recovery is being pursued through Ext.P30 to P32 notices, effecting attachment on the immovable properties. Under the above circumstances limited prayer in the writ petition is only for a direction to keep in abeyance the recovery steps till the disposal of the revision petition. 4. Heard Sri. Abul Hassan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent and Sri.Saji Varghese, Standing Counsel for 1st respondent. It is contended that huge amounts are due to both the respondents from the 3rd respondent company, and the steps for recovery was pending since the last so many years. It is further contended that liability of the personal guarantors are co- extensive with the borrower and the contentions raised impugning the proceedings initiated against person and properties of the Directors, are totally unsustainable. W.P.(C).31169/10-U -5- 5. Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners had pointed out that the respondent No.13 company is having assets and no effective steps of recovery is being pursued against such assets for realisation of the arrears. It is contended that steps now initiated for attachment and sale of personal properties belonging to the Directors, without resorting to any effective steps for sale of assets of the company is highly unreasonable. Sri. Saji Varghese, learned Standing Counsel for 1st respondent submitted that the company is undergoing winding up proceedings and recovery steps could not be pursued against the assets of the company effectively, without intervention of the Company Court. 6. Having considered rival submissions, I am of the opinion that since the statutory revision is pending consideration and disposal before the 12th respondent, the writ petition can be disposed of directing that authority to consider the entire matter, within a time frame. 7. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of W.P.(C).31169/10-U -6- directing the 12th respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P29 revision petition, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 8. Till such time orders are passed on the revision petition, further steps of recovery against personal properties of the petitioners shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that attachments if any already effected against such personal properties will continue. It is also made clear that the respondents will be free to proceed with all steps of recovery permissible under law, against any of the assets of the 13th respondent company. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb