IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 737 of 2007(K) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- SALMA ABDUL KARIM, W/O. LATE ABDUL KARIM, ELEMAKKAL HOUSE, KARIKODU, THODUPUZHA EAST, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, ADV. SMT.K.S.CHANDRIKA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R.), THRISSUR. 2. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, BALARAMAPURAM BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. N.SURENDRAN, SHINI NIVAS, VENGALLOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA. 4. S. DAS, P.D.TEACHER, GOVT. VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VALARA P.O., DEVIYAR COLONY, ADIMALI. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL, ADV. SRI. M. SASEENDRAN,SC, ADV. SRI.A.K.JOHN, ADDL.SC, ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN, ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER (THURAVOOR), ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR, ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NOS.775/2007 & 6971/2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.737/2007-K: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO:SDT/KTM/5258/06-07 DTD. 08/11/2006 OF THE R.1. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.737, 775 & 6971 of 2007 ------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT A transaction entered into by the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C)No.737/07 with the Kerala State Financial Enterprises {for short “KSFE”}, is the genesis of these three writ petitions. Parties are common. The contentions taken up are also common to all the three writ petitions. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The 3rd respondent in W.P.(C)No.737/07 availed a loan from the 2nd respondent KSFE. Apparently, the petitioner's husband and the 4th respondent, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.6971/07, stood as guarantors to the transaction. There was default in repayment of the same and steps were taken against the sureties. Hence the two writ petitions, W.P.(C)Nos.737 and 6971/07. 3. Sri.T.I.Abdul Salam, learned counsel for the principal debtor in both the writ petitions, submits that he is negotiating for a one time settlement. He refers to Ext.P3 agreement in W.P.(C)No.6971/07 to contend that W.P.(C).NO.737/07 & Con.cases :: 2 :: apparently one of the sureties also received some amount from him. Therefore, a settlement of accounts between the principal debtor and sureties inter se might be required, other than the settlement of the account with the KSFE, it is contended. In my view, any inter se dispute between the principal debtor and the sureties is a matter, which has to be resolved among themselves and not with the junction of the KSFE as such. Mr.Salam further submits that if some time is granted, the principal debtor will be able to negotiate with the KSFE. Learned standing counsel for the KSFE submits that one time settlement is now in vogue and the principal debtor is entitled to move an application for one time settlement. 4. After hearing counsel on both sides, the writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms: 1. The principal debtor viz., the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C)No.737/07 as also in W.P.(C)No.6971/07 shall file an application before the Financial Enterprises for the benefit of one time settlement, within four weeks from today. W.P.(C).NO.737/07 & Con.cases :: 3 :: 2. If it is so done, the Financial Enterprises shall consider the same, in accordance with law and fix a schedule of repayment as well. 3. Steps may be taken, as far as possible, to recover the arrears from the principal debtor. But if there is any difficulty for the Financial Enterprises to do so, a communication may be given by them indicating the reason for not proceeding against the principal debtor and also the reason as to why it has, therefore, become necessary to proceed against the sureties. 4. Orders may be passed by the financial Enterprises, after notice to the principal debtor and the sureties in this regard within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. The sureties shall not alienate any of the assets which they have, at present, with them until orders are passed by the Financial Enterprises, in the manner aforementioned and thereafter, if proceedings are initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act, against the sureties, the said proceedings shall be subject to this. 6. The Death Cum Retirement Gratuity due to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.775/07 shall be retained by the department, till orders are passed by the Financial Enterprises, in the manner W.P.(C).NO.737/07 & Con.cases :: 4 :: aforementioned and thereafter, the petitioners shall move for disbursal of the same, provided, the recovery is otherwise effected by the Financial Enterprises from the principal debtor or his assets. It is made clear that if there is any undue delay in the closure of the account by the principal debtor, then it is open to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.775/07 to take appropriate steps in that regard including, if necessary, to move the appropriate court. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//