IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37779 of 2010(V) ----------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- M/S.ELAN ESTATES & RESORTS (P) LTD., 206, GOVIND APARTMENTS, KALATHILPARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM SOUTH, PIN-682 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ABDUL SATHAR ISMAIL SAIT. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI. SATHISH NINAN ARUN THOMAS JENNIS STEPHEN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, KATTAPPANA, PIN-685 515. 4. THE ZONAL MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 017. 5. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (RECOVERY), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 017. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37779 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The petitioner is running a tourist resort for which he had availed loan from respondents 1 to 4. Consequent to default committed in repayment of the loan availed, coercive steps of recovery was initiated under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. 2. It is noticed that the petitioner had approached this court on an earlier occasion by filing WP(C). 29786/10. It is evident from the judgment of the above said writ petition, which is produced as Ext.P3, that the respondent Corporation had permitted instalment payment of the defaulted amounts. However, considering the contentions raised, this court had shown further indulgence in permitting the petitioner to pay off the liability as agreed upon, under a more easier instalment facility. In Ext.P3 Judgment the petitioner was directed to make payment of the first instalment as agreed upon (as per Ext.P2 proceedings marked in that writ petition) on or before 30.10.2010 and the subsequent instalments on or before 30th day of the succeeding months. It is noticed that, through Ext.P4 order issued by this court, a subsequent extension of time was W.P.(C).37779/10-V -2- granted for payment of the second instalment till 30.12.2010, to be paid along with the third instalment. 3. According to the petitioner, after Ext.P3 the petitioner had effected payment of a total sum of Rs.35,35,000/-. It is stated that the petitioner is not in a financial position to continue payment of the amounts as stipulated in the earlier judgment. It is further stated that the petitioner had submitted a representation as evidenced from Ext.P8 before the 1st respondent stating that the petitioner had already taken steps for sale of the tourist resort and that he will make payment of the entire amounts before 31.3.2011. He had further offered that the entire income generating out of conducting of the resort, will be transferred to the loan account. Therefore the petitioner had sought time till 31.3.2011 to pay off the entire liability. 4. In this writ petition the petitioner is seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P8 representation. Inter alia the petitioner is seeking direction against the respondents to permit the petitioner to close the loan account by 31.3.2011. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, I am of the view that the specific direction sought for in this writ petition could not be allowed. It is evident that the petitioner had undertaken before this court on an earlier W.P.(C).37779/10-V -3- occasion to pay off the liability in a phased manner as agreed upon between the parties. This court had shown further indulgence in regularising the time stipulated for payment. Now the recovery steps are being pursued and I do not find any legal ground to interdict with such proceedings. 6. However, it is evident that the petitioner had made a specific offer to settle the entire liability before 31.3.2011. It is left open to the respondents to consider such offer made through Ext.P8 and to take appropriate decision thereon. The petitioner will be at liberty to make deposit of any considerable amount in order to show their bonafides with respect to the offer made, and to pursue appropriate remedy before the respondents on the basis of Ext.P8 representation. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations, reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy before the respondents. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb