IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 948 of 2010(P) ------------------------ PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. JACOB MATHEW, KAVUMKAL HOUSE, VELLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. SHIBU K., KIZHAKKIDATHU HOUSE, VADAKKIDATHUKAVU, ADOOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, KFC FOR R1-2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 948 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The first petitioner had availed a loan to an extent of Rs.94 lakhs from the respondent KFC, on the strength of the collateral securities offered, in connection with the setting up of a hotel. Subsequently the loan was taken over by the 2nd petitioner, agreeing that the entire liability to the KFC will be cleared by the said petitioner. After giving credit to the amounts already satisfied by the first petitioner, there was an outstanding liability of 46 lakhs; out of which nearly 35 lakhs have already been satisfied by the 2nd petitioner. After negotiations, the manner in which the outstanding liability should be cleared has been given in Exts.P3 and P4 proposals and it is stated as accepted as borne by Ext.R1(a) proceedings dated 15.03.2010, subject to the conditions as specified therein. 2. The subsequent portion of events has been mentioned by the respondents in the counter affidavit dated 18.05.2010, pointing out that, if the course suggested by the parties has to be given effect to the petitioners have to comply with the conditions in Ext.R1(a). The petitioners however, have sought to waive the condition No. 1 in Ext.R1(a). It is also added therein (paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit) that the request made by the petitioner to waive the condition No. 1 is also under consideration. 2 WP(C) No.948/2010 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are very much anxious to have the entire liability cleared at the shortest possible time and that the 2nd petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 representation dated 04.05.2010 so as to arrive at a consensus. It is stated that the said representation is pending consideration before the 1st respondent and that the petitioners would be satisfied, if necessary direction is given to consider Ext.P5 and finalise the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 4. After hearing the submissions, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the matter as assured in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, along with Ext.P5 representation and pass appropriate orders thereon after hearing the petitioner, which shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 'Status quo' will continue, till the matter is finalised as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc