Kerala High Court
M/S. Eco Rubber vs The Kerala Financial Corporation on 23 December, 2022
Author: S. Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
W. A. No. 1985 of 2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 2ND POUSHA, 1944
WA NO. 1985 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 6352/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
M/S. ECO RUBBER
MAYITHARA MARKET P.O, CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN -688539,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPREITOR.
SMT. BIJI SANJEEV, AGED 49 YEARS,
W/O. SANJEEV, KONCHERY HOUSE,
MAYITHARA MARKET P.O, CHERTHALA
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688539
BY ADVS.
V.MAHENDRANATH
P.T.SHEEJISH
RESPONDENT/S:
THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION
ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER, KUMARANASAN SMARAKA,
MANDIRAM, COURT ROAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN -
688001
BY ADV. M. R. VENUGOPAL, SC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W. A. No. 1985 of 2022
-2-
JUDGMENT
S. Manikumar, C. J.
Before the writ court, in W. P. (C) No. 6352 of 2022, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-
"(i) Give a direction to the respondent to keep the coercive proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to EXT-P4 in abeyance and permit the petitioner to pay the amount arrived at through the one time settlement scheme;
(ii) To give a direction to the respondent to fix the OTS amount and to settle the matter in an amiable manner;
(iii) To give a direction to the respondent Corporation not to cause nuisance at the petitioner's work place, causing annoyance to the buyers and prospective customers or the petitioner's firm."
2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as under:-
2.1. Petitioner is a small scale industrial entrepreneur, and proprietor of a Rubber Product Processor Firm by name 'Eco Rubber'.
She had availed a loan of Rs. 7 Crores in 2015, towards working W. A. No. 1985 of 2022 -3- capital from the Kerala Financial Corporation, the respondent firm. Due to hiatus in the business, petitioner was not able to service the loan account properly. Respondent offered a scheme of One Time Settlement (OTS) to the petitioner, and according to the arrangement, petitioner paid a total of Rs.6 Crores.
2.2. Petitioner has stated that she is ready and willing to pay off all the dues payable to the respondent. However, the Kerala Financial Corporation, the respondent, is not willing to grant any more time to the petitioner. The outstanding is only Rs. 2 Crores and odd. Petitioner has conveyed her willingness to pay off the outstanding, if some time and installments are granted to her.
2.3. Petitioner has further stated that though she has sought for settlement of the account, the respondent was not at all sympathetic to the petitioner. She has been asked by the respondent to pay galactic figures, and that if the same is not paid, the firm will be closed and sold out. The officials of the respondent, in group, visited the petitioner's factory round the day, and it is discreetly known that the officials of the respondent would close down the company on the close of the office hours of 28.02.2022, on the pretext that the petitioner is W. A. No. 1985 of 2022 -4- not ready to settle the matter.
3. After considering the rival submissions, writ court, by judgment dated 09.11.2022 in W. P. (C) No. 6352 of 2022, dismissed the writ petition, as under:-
"3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not raise the amount of Rupees One crore and has filed I.A. No. 6 of 2022 seeking enhancement of time and I.A. No. 5 of 2022 for a direction to the respondent to recalculate the amount due in accordance with the master circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Having gone through the affidavits filed in support of the petition for enhancement of time and the petition for direction, I am of the considered opinion that the attempt is to protract the proceedings. The petitioner failed to pay the amounts availing the One Time Settlement benefit and also failed to remit the amount as per the direction of this Court. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that even at this point of time the respondent is willing to close the account if the principal amount is paid. On this, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the principal amount is not reckoned in tune with the master circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India and hence, the petitioner is not in a position to pay the amount.
In the above circumstances, I find no reason to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is hence dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to pay the principal amount and W. A. No. 1985 of 2022 -5- settle the loan account immediately, or to approach the appropriate legal forum for its remedies."
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, writ petitioner has preferred the instant writ appeal.
5. Today, when the matter came up, though Mr. P. T. Sheejish, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant had already paid Rs. 8,65,00,000/- to the respondent, Smt. Dhanya P. Ashokan, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Financial Corporation, the respondent, submitted that amount is still due from the petitioner.
6. It could be seen from the material on record that writ court has taken note of the fact that the appellant had failed to pay the amounts availed through the One Time Settlement benefit and also failed to remit the amount as per the directions of the writ court.
7. It is the contention of the appellant that the principal amount is not reckoned in tune with the master circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India and, therefore, not in a position to pay the amount demanded by the respondent. That apart, the prayer for a direction to W. A. No. 1985 of 2022 -6- the respondent to fix the OTS amount and to settle the matter in a amiable manner, cannot be granted.
8. In such a view of the matter and since there exists a dispute between the parties, with respect to the amount due, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not expected to delve into the factual disputes raised. To decide the same, evidence should be adduced, both oral and documental, and the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to file a suit before the tribunal.
9. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, instant writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE Eb ///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE W. A. No. 1985 of 2022 -7- APPENDIX OF WA 1985/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT THE APPELLANT