Kerala High Court
S.L.Sai Prasad vs The Tahsildar (Rr) on 11 January, 2011
Author: C.K.Abdul Rehim
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37445 of 2010(E)
1. S.L.SAI PRASAD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TAHSILDAR (RR),
... Respondent
2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
4. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :11/01/2011
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J
---------------------------------------
W.P(C) No.37445 of 2010-E
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the former Director of a Company incorporated, by name M/s.Libra Steels Pvt.Ltd., which was sanctioned with a margin money loan from the District Industries Center of the State Government, at Palakkad. The petitioner resigned from directorship in the year 1997, and according to the petitioner the said fact was duly intimated to the authorities concerned, as required under the provisions of the Company Law. Contention of the petitioner is that he has no personal liability with respect to any of the arrears of the company. It is specifically contended that the petitioner has not executed any personal guarantee with respect to availing of margin money loan.
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the above position, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, on issuing Exts.P1 and P2 notices under Section 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act W.P(C) No.37445 of 2010-E 2 demanding a sum of Rs.2,39,214/-, which according to him is the arrears due in the margin money loan account. It is evident from Ext.P1 that the demand is issued against other persons also, which according to the petitioner are the Managing Director and Director of the company at present. But grievance of the petitioner is that, on the basis of Ext.P2, proceedings are threatened against personal properties of the petitioner.
3. However, it is noticed that the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 objections against the proceedings initiated, which was submitted before respondents 1 and 2. It is stated that, without considering the objections raised under Ext.P3, respondents 1 and 2 are threatening with coercive steps. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this Court.
4. Going by Ext.P3, it is evident that the said objections were submitted as contemplated under Section 34(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The respondents 1 and 2 are at obligation to consider such objections, before proceeding with further steps. Therefore, I am of the view W.P(C) No.37445 of 2010-E 3 that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3.
5. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 objections and to take a decision thereof, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Needful in this regard shall be done as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
6. Till such time a decision is taken on the basis of Ext.P3, recovery steps against personal properties of the petitioner, both movable and immovable, shall be kept in abeyance.
7. It is made clear that the above direction will not prevent the authorities from proceeding against the assets of the company or against any other Directors.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE