IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6816 of 2009(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ KONCHERRY WEAVERS PRIVATE LTD. MAYITHARA, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIECTOR SRI.K.S.SHAJI BY ADV. SRI.SATISH MURTI SMT.M.UMA DEVI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING,KAKKANAD. COCHIN 682 037. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 6816 OF 2009 (V) ==================== Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was allotted a plot of land within the Cochin Special Economic Zone under the respondent and Ext.P1 is the lease deed. For the reasons stated in Ext.P2, the lease was terminated and it would appear that the petitioner thereupon invoked the Arbitration Clause as per Ext.P3. Even according to the petitioner, when coercive action was initiated, at that stage, they filed a writ petition before this court as WP(C) No.34463/08 and by judgment dated 25th of November, 2008, this court directed the respondents herein to defer further proceedings for a period of one month with a direction to the petitioner to clear the arrears in the meanwhile. 2. Thereafter, twice the petitioner got the time extended by filing IA No16337/08 and 980/09 and the time was got extended till 20/2/2009. It is now submitted by the standing counsel appearing for the respondent that by filing IA 2748/09, petitioner attempted to get the time further extended, but this Court by order dated 26.02.2009, dismissed that application. 3. Now the request made by the petitioner is that goods worth WPC 6816/09 :2 : Rs.1,29,34,760/- are available within their industrial shed and that they should be allowed to remove the goods, sell the same and permit to discharge the dues of the respondent by paying out of the sale proceeds. 4. In my view, it is not open to the petitioner to seek that relief from this Court for the reason that by the judgment referred to above, they were already given time to discharge the liability, making it clear that on their failure, respondent will be entitled to proceed against the petitioner for realising its dues. 5. Therefore, if this Court is to permit removal of the available stock, that will be defeating the right of the respondent under the judgment referred to above to realise the dues from out of the stock available in the place. Therefore, writ petition merits dismissal and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp