IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 17370 of 2005(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.P.RAJAGOPAL, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAHALAKSHMI JEWELLERY LTD., PAZHANI VILAS, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. ANIL SIVARAMAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KESTON ROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.RONY J.PALLATH FOR R1 SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 17370 OF 2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 03.04.1989 EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 01..06.1995 EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 11.11.2003 EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.12.2004 EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.12.2003 EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 21.05.2005 EXT. P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04.06.2005 1ST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT : EXT. R1 (a) : TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE TO THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 03.04.1989 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No . 17370 of 2005 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 5th August , 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as the Managing Director of a Company, in which the first respondent / Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation (KSIDC) is also a share holder. In connection with formation of the Company, Ext. P1 agreement was executed in between, specifying the rights and liberties of the parties concerned. There is a provision in the said agreement to 'buy back' the shares held by the first respondent / KSIDC within a period of three years. However, the project did not come through in the desired manner, especially with regard to the manufacturing and export of the gold ornaments. In the said circumstances, the first respondent / KSIDC demanded the petitioner as per Ext. P4, to buy back the shares held by the first respondent, which involves the basic issue in the writ petition, besides the challenge against the revenue recovery steps pursued against the petitioner, in respect of the dues to be satisfied to the first respondent, vide Ext. P6. W.P. (C) No. 17370 of 2005 : 2 : 2. When the matter was admitted by this Court on 09.06.2005, an interim order of stay was granted, which however was modified subsequently, passing a detailed order dated 25.08.2005, as follows : “The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of value of shares sold to first respondent, which under the agreement between the petitioner and the 1st respondent should have been repurchased by the petitioner. The value of share is around Rs. 5 lakhs with interest thereon whereas the balance loan arrears runs into crores of rupees. I do not know what purpose will be served by granting stay against recovery of Rs. 5 lakhs when the Corporation is free to proceed for recovery of balance loan arrears which runs into crores of rupees. Therefore, respondents are free to proceed for recovery of entire arrears of loan and the stay is limited to value of the shares i.e. Rs. 5 lakhs and interest thereon. Respondents will be free to proceed for recovery against the company and directors in accordance with the loan agreement and are directed to file a report within two weeks.” 3. After considering the materials on record, the orders as aforesaid and also after hearing the learned counsel petitioner and the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties, this Court finds that, interim order dated 25.08.2005 has taken care of the situation, safeguarding the interests of the first respondent and as such, the prayers of the petitioner have lost significance. W.P. (C) No. 17370 of 2005 : 3 : In the above circumstances, no further orders are called for. The Writ Petition is disposed of, making the interim order absolute. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd