IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 502 of 2008(I) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ CAPT. DOMINIC BABU,AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.LATE M.A.DOMINIC,FLAT NO.81,'KAIRALI APPARTMENTS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,KOCHI-36. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,KAWDIAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE DEPUTY MANAGER KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,KOCHI. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR (RR) OFFICE OF THE TAHSIDLAR KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,NO.1, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR (RR) KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 6. M/S.OCEAN DREDGING (INDIA) LTD FLAT NO.905 PIONEER TOWERS, PLOT NO.1, MARINE DRIVE,KOCHI. 7. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY,CHAIRMAN M/S.OCEAN DREDGING (INDIA) LTD FLAT NO.905 PIONEER TOWERS, PLOT NO.1, MARINE DRIVE,KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE, SC FOR R1 AND R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).502/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, who was a Director of the sixth respondent, Company, stood as surety for a loan availed by the sixth respondent from the first respondent, KSIDC. He is apprehensive that the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act would be initiated against him at the instance of the first respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seventh respondent who was a Managing Director of the Sixth respondent had also stood as surety. He had submitted a proposal for One Time Settlement of the dues with the first respondent and that it is pending consideration. He further submits that even otherwise there are assets still available in the name of the sixth respondent, valuable enough to absorb any decree that may be obtained by the first respondent against the sixth respondent. W.P.(C).502/2008 2 2. Learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent submits that though there are assets in the name of the sixth respondent, Company, it is available not only to the first respondent but other official institutions also . The petitioner cannot be permitted to be exonerated, it is submitted. 3. After having heard the learned counsel on either side and having perused the averments in the writ petition, I am of the view, that an interference by this Court, may not be required at this stage. But I direct that respondents 3 and 4 shall issue notice to the petitioner before any steps are taken against the petitioner for recovery of any amount due to the first respondent. Petitioner shall be entitled to take such objections that are available to him at that stage. Without prejudice to any such right on the part of the petitioner, the writ petition is closed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs