IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 708 of 2009(D) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.17041/2007 DATED 15/06/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ---------------------- 1. NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (APKK&M)LTD P.B.NO.2173, 2912,NOW NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD.,SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE, COIMBATORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (TECH). 2. ALAGAPPA TEXTILES (COCHIN) MILLS, ALAGAPPA NAGAR, TRICHUR-680 302, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-4, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. 2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE) K.S.E.B. VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-4. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2009, ALONG WITH RP NOS. 720 & 721 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- R.P.Nos.708 of 2009 in WP(C) No.17041/2007 720 of 2009 in WP(C) No.16729/2007 & 721 of 2009 in WP(C) No.16728/2007 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of August, 2009 O R D E R The writ petitions filed by the review petitioners were disposed of by judgment dated 15/06/2009. In the judgment, the claim for the benefit of the Scheme sanctioned by the BIFR, in terms of the provisions contained in the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985, was rejected on the ground that the amounts, which are sought to be realised from the respondent Board, pertained to periods subsequent to the sanctioning of the Scheme. Such conclusion was arrived at mainly relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dy.Commercial Tax Officer v. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals (AIR 1997 SC 2027), and the Full Bench of this Court in Prima Industries Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) and others (2006(4) ILR (Kerala) 831). 2. In these review petitions, the main contention raised by RP Nos.708, 720 & 721/2009 -2- the learned senior counsel for the review petitioners is that the Scheme mentioned in the judgment was modified by the BIFR itself, by its order dated 04/09/2008. According to the review petitioners, since the liability that was sought to be enforced against the petitioners pertained to the period prior to 04/09/2008, when the Scheme was modified, the petitioners should get the benefit of the Scheme and the provisions of the Act, in so far as the liabilities mentioned in these petitions are concerned. 3. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned senior counsel for the review petitioners made available, a copy of order dated 04/09/2008, along with a copy of the modified scheme, as approved by the BIFR. A reading of the order shows that, in so far as the Kerala State Electricity Board and the Government of Kerala are concerned, the only modification to the Scheme brought out is what is stated in paragraph 7.2(ii), which reads as under:- “In Chapter XV, Part B on P-38 of MDRS, a new para 8 be added “Govt. of Kerala (GOK) would consider to grant relief & concessions to the company engisaged in the Scheme”.” Neither along with the review petitions, nor in the pleadings, there RP Nos.708, 720 & 721/2009 -3- is anything to indicate that in pursuance to the aforesaid paragraph incorporated in the modified Scheme, the Government have granted any relief or concession to the Company enabling it to avoid payment of the amounts demanded in these writ petitions. 4. If that be so, the fact that the Scheme was modified by order dated 04/09/2008 is immaterial, and if so, the conclusion in the judgment cannot be said to be erroneous warranting its review. 5. Be that as it may, if the petitioners have a case that the Government have issued any order, it is clarified that it will be open to the petitioners to claim the benefit of the said order, and the directions in the judgment will stand in its way. These review petitions are closed with the above observations. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg