IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 8577 of 2004(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MUHAMMED MUSTHAFFA, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. KASIM PILLAI, K.P.1/476, KOTTAMUGAL, NALANCHIRA, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. MR.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN MR.K.SATHEESH KUMAR MS.RESHMI POULOSE RESPONDENT: --------------- THE CHIEF MANAGER, THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM BRANCH, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. MR.R.S.KALKURA, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).8577/04 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE REG.NO.09/10/NDD/6701 (SERIES) EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.19.3.03 ISSUED BY GEN. MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTER, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.29.12.03 ISSUED BY DI.C., TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF LETTER. DT.4.3.04 ISSUED BY CHIEF MANAGER, KFC, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.28.2.04 SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL okb //True Copy// P.A. to Judge C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.8577 OF 2004 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009. J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The petitioner had availed loan from the respondent to the tune of Rs.13.90 lakhs for starting a Small Scale Industry. Subsequently the industry could not be run in a viable manner and repayments in the loan account was defaulted. The respondent initiated recovery steps and Ext.P4 notice was issued proposing sale by public auction of the immovable properties offered as collateral security. The grievance of the petitioner is that along with effecting attachment of the immovable property, the respondent had also attached a building No:PP 269/VII, which belonged to one Smt: Nafeesath Beevi, wherein grade Rubber sheets were stocked in connection with business of another firm, M/s. Sheeba Rubbers, which originally belonged to his deceased father-in-law, on 27.2.2004. According to the petitioner the stock of the rubber sheet kept therein was not belonging to the industry of the petitioner for which the loan was availed. On the other hand, the stock kept therein belongs to the firm M/s. Sheeba Rubbers, who was under agreement for supply of rubber to M/s. M.R.F. Ltd. and the stocks were kept for the W.P.(C). 8577/04 2 said purpose. Further it is contended that the premises was actually under hypothecation to Syndicate Bank, with respect to a loan availed by M/s. Sheeba Rubbers. Hence the petitioner is seeking directions for permitting him to open the godown and for removing Rubber Sheets stocked therein. 2. This Court, through an interim order dated 19.3.2004, had issued directions to the respondent to permit the petitioner to sell the Rubber Sheets stocked in the room, on condition of the petitioner remitting 50% of the value of the Rubber Sheets to the respondent. Further it is directed that the respondent will permit sale of the scrap and barrels and other materials stocked. The respondent, in their counter affidavit, admits that pursuant to the above said interim order the petitioner had remitted an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 31.3.2004 and obtained release of the premises. It is further stated that subsequent to filing of the writ petition, the loan availed by the petitioner was rescheduled extending repayment period. The interest arrears amounting to Rs.2,78,334/- was funded and rescheduled to be paid in 24 monthly installments. It is stated that time for repayment of the principal was extended by 32 months and the rate of interest was reduced to 12.5%, which was accepted by the petitioner. 3. In view of the above submissions, the grievance raised in this writ petition no more survives for consideration. It is W.P.(C). 8577/04 3 made clear that if there is arrears in the loan account, the respondent is free to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. It is also made clear that if the petitioner has got any dispute with respect to the amounts due or if the petitioner intends to make any attempt for settlement of the arrears under the one time settlement scheme, he is free to work out remedies before the appropriate authorities. The writ petition is disposed of as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb