Kerala High Court
M/S. Kerala Handloom Silk Consortium ... vs Canara Bank on 20 August, 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2014/9TH JYAISHTA, 1936
WP(C).No. 13705 of 2014 (K)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
----------------------
M/S. KERALA HANDLOOM SILK CONSORTIUM PVT.LTD.,
BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.S.MOHAN
S/O.SRINIVASA PANICKER, P.S.SADANAM, MANGALATHUKONAM
KATTACHALKUZHI P.O., BALARAMAPURAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695509.
BY ADV. SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB
RESPONDENT :
------------------------
CANARA BANK
CANTONMENT BRANCH, CANARA BANK BUILDING, M.G.ROAD
SPENCER JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER
THE SARFAESI ACT 2002.
BY ADV. SRI.PAULYMATHEW MURICKEN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
WP(C).No. 13705 of 2014 (K)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT-P1: A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT DATED 20.08.2004.
EXHIBIT-P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL DATED 26.5.2005
ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT-P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.2.2006 ISSUED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA RECOMMENDING THE PETITIONER'S
PROJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (SSI)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT-P4: A TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE REVISED
GUIDELINES OF THE SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES CLUSTER
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS DATED 14.03.2006 ISSUED BY MINISTRY
OF SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT-P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED PROJECT REPORT DATED 20.9.2007
SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER COMPANY TO THE INDUSTRIES
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT-P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION DATED
24.03.2008 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOM AND TEXTILES
TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR HANDLOOM, MINISTRY OF
TEXTILES, NEW DELHI.
EXHIBIT-P7: ATRUE COPY OF CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND SCHEME FOR MICRO
SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES.
EXHIBIT-P8: THE TRUE COPY OF THE E-AUCTION NOTICE DATED 07/09/2013,
ISSUED UNDER RULE 8 (6) & (9) OF THE SECURITY INTEREST
(ENFORCEMENT) RULES, 2002.
EXHIBIT-P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30.08.2013 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT BANK.
EXHIBIT-P10: THE TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT AND VALUATION
CERTIFICATE DATED 07/02/2011, DULY ISSUED BY THE APPROVED
VALUER.
EXHIBIT-P11: THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/10/2013 OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.24836
OF 2013.
EXHIBIT-P12: A TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE
RESPONDENT BANK REGARDING ONE TIME SETTLEMENT.
EXHIBIT-P13: ATRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.03.2104 MADE BY
PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT BANK.
((Contd...)
WP(C).No. 13705 of 2014 (K)
EXHIBIT-P14: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN
W.P.(C) NO.11400/2014 DATED 25TH APRIL 2014.
EXHIBIT-P15: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE RECEIVED ON 30.4.2014 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT BANK UNDER R.8 (6) AND (9) OF THE SECURITY
INTEREST ENFORCEMENT RULES 2002.
EXHIBIT-P16: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02.05.2014 GIVEN TO
THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P17: A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID COMMUNICATION OF THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P18: A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID COMMUNICATION MADE BY THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P19: A TRUE COPY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT AND THE REQUEST.
EXHIBIT-P20: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19.05.2014
REJECTING THE PETITIONERS OFFER.
EXHIBIT-P21: A TRUE COPY OF LTHE COMMUNICATION MADE BY THE
RESPONDENT IN THIS REGARD.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
-------------------------------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Mn
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 13705 of 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated 30th May, 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is before this Court challenging the proceedings taken under the SARFAESI Act. Petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.22 Lakhs in the year 2005 purportedly as a working capital loan. Admittedly, no activity was started for long, for want of sanction from the Central Government. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that work was commenced only some time previous to the filing of the writ petition. In any case, the exact date is not known.
2. In any circumstances, when SARFAESI proceedings were issued for default in the working capital loan account which was availed nine years back, petitioner was before this Court with a writ petition. The writ petition WP(C).13705/14 2 was disposed of by Ext.P11. In Ext.P11 this Court had clearly recorded that the petitioner had given up all contentions and confined the prayer to a repayment in instalment. That was granted and the petitioner was directed to repay the loan in ten equal monthly instalments starting from 1.12.2013. Admittedly, no amounts were paid as per the instalment granted.
3 Subsequent to that, it is submitted by the petitioner, that a One Time Settlement was proposed by the Bank itself by Ext.P12. Petitioner sought for consideration under the Scheme by Ext.P13 and approached this Court again with a writ petition. In that writ petition, petitioner claimed only for consideration under the OTS Scheme. In such circumstances, despite the petitioner having not complied with the earlier direction for instalment, taking a lenient view, the writ petition was disposed of directing OTS to be WP(C).13705/14 3 considered and the proceedings taken under the SARFAESI Act to be kept in abeyance till orders are passed thereon.
4. In fact, even before the OTS proposal, the possession of the building and land was taken over by the respondent Bank after obtaining orders from the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate, which is seen mentioned in Ext.P14. In view of the directions issued in Ext.P14, the petitioner submitted a proposal for OTS purportedly by Ext.P19. Against the total amount demanded of Rs.22,39,416.98, petitioner's proposal for settlement was for an amount of Rs.1,61,748/-. Lack of bona fides of the petitioner is glaringly revealed from the proposal itself. Hence, the respondent Bank rightly rejected the prayer by Ext.P20 and also pointed out that Ext.P12 was the intimation regarding the Adalath fixed on 5.3.2014 which was not attended by the petitioner. Even then WP(C).13705/14 4 the Bank was willing to consider the proposal as per the direction of this Court in Ext.P14. It is towards that end that the petitioner has made Ext.P19 proposal; the hollowness of which is very evident from the proposal. In the circumstances, this Court is inclined to agree with the learned counsel appearing for the Bank that the petitioner is merely resorting to delaying tactics, without any real intention to settle the liability. In that context, nothing survives in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. However if a reasonable offer is made on behalf of the petitioner, it is made clear, the dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the Bank in considering the same.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge Mrcs //True Copy//