Kerala High Court
Centurion Bank Of Punjab Ltd vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 15 June, 2009
Author: S.Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3021 of 2008(I)
1. CENTURION BANK OF PUNJAB LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
... Respondent
2. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
3. MICROWAVE PRODUCTS (INDIA) LIMITED,
4. P.D.JOSE,
5. A.O.THOMAS,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR(SR)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :15/06/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 3021 of 2008
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 15th June, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The dispute in this writ petition was originally between the Bank and the Provident Fund Organisation as to who should sell the property belonging to respondents 3 to 5, which has been morgaged in favour of the petitioner-Bank for loan amounts advanced by the Bank to the 3rd respondent, on which property the Provident Fund Organisation claimed first charge for recovery of amounts due from the 3rd respondent under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The property comprises of a large extent. The Bank submitted that only a portion of the property is now proposed to be sold by respondents 1 and 2, which would prejudicially affect the value of other parts of the property. This was disputed by the learned standing counsel for the Provident Fund Organisation. According to him, there would be no diminution of value of the property on account of the sale of a part of the property for realisation of the provident fund dues.
2. By judgment dated 28-2-2008, I held that I need not go into this controversy since, admittedly, the entire property can be sold by the additional 6th respondent before whom execution proceedings were pending and the Provident Fund Organisation had first charge for realisation of provident fund dues can claim first charge on the sale proceedings. Since I was of opinion that if the additional 6th respondent sells the property in execution of the decree passed by the DRT in favour of the Bank and out of the sale proceeds therefrom, first amounts due to the Provident Fund Organisation are paid off, I disposed of the writ petition with the following directions: W.P.C. No. 3021/08 -: 2 :-
"The additional 6th respondent shall take all steps to sell the properties in question. This shall be completed within a period six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Out of the sale proceeds so realised, the 6th respondent shall first pay off the dues recoverable by respondents 1 and 2 from the third respondent and only the balance shall be available for appropriation of the decree which is sought to be executed by the Bank. Respondents 1 and 2 shall intimate the additional 6th respondent the total amount due from the 3rd respondent to them, which amount shall be paid by the additional 6th respondent to respondents 1 and 2 out of the sale proceeds which shall be credited against the provident fund dues of the 3rd respondent."
Thereafter, the additional respondent filed a review petition claiming that the State of Kerala has first charge over the property by virtue of Section 26B of the Kerala General Sales-tax Act, since the owner of the property was a defaulter in payment of sales tax. In view of such a claim and since the State was not heard in the matter, I reviewed my judgment and directed that the writ petition be heard afresh. It is pursuant thereto, the writ petition has come up for hearing today.
3. Now, it is submitted before me that the sale of the immovable properties belonging to the defaulter was over and the amounts due to the Provident Fund Organization have already been paid. That being so, the charge of the Provident Fund Organisation has been fully satisfied. As such, I need not consider the question as to between the P.F.Organisation and the State of Kerala, who has the first charge in respect of the immovable property in question. The recovery officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal is seized of the matter. As and when he sells the properties, if the State of Kerala has any claim for first charge over the property as against the petitioner-Bank, W.P.C. No. 3021/08 -: 3 :- it is for the State to get themselves impleaded in the sale proceedings before the recovery officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and to establish their rights in respect of the same. Without prejudice to that right, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/