Makkar Pillai P.K vs The Managing Director on 22 March, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Makkar Pillai P.K vs The Managing Director on 22 March, 2010

Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 8453 of 2010(F)


1. MAKKAR PILLAI P.K.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. BRANCH MANAGER,

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR),

4. K.S.MUHAMMED SAMEER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.M.HABEEB

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :22/03/2010

 O R D E R
             P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    W.P.(C).No.8453 of 2010
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
         Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


                          J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs:

i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents not to conduct the sale of the property as per Ext.P4 notice;

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to adjourn the sale;

iii) quash Ext.P4 notice and all other proceedings;

iv) call for the records leading to Ext.P3 letter;

v) allow the petitioner to pay the amount offered by him in installments as the offer made by him in the OTS Scheme; and

vi) pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.

2. The case projected in the writ petition is that, the petitioner was a surety in respect of a loan taken by the 4th respondent. Pursuant to Ext.P1 verdict, it is stated that the property of the 4th respondent has already been released to W.P.(C).No.8453 of 2010 2 him, despite the fact that the 4th respondent is the principal borrower. It is also stated that the petitioner is willing to settle the matter for a total sum of Rs.40 lakhs by way of OTS.

3. The learned Standing Counsel, with reference to the statement filed before this Court submits that the contenton now raised, with reference to Ext.P1 and the release of the property of the principal borrower does not hold any water at all; as no specific allegation has been raised in the writ petition as to the course and events pursued by the respondents 1 to 3 in this regard, and hence not answered in the statement. The learned Standing Counsel, however, submits on instructions that the 4th respondent is very much a near relative of the petitioner and that the property was released to the 4th respondent, pursuant to Ext.P1, based on the specific consent given in writing by the petitioner and that the property of the petitioner is the only item, now available with the respondents, as security for the loan. It W.P.(C).No.8453 of 2010 3 is also brought to the notice of this Court that, earlier, pursuant to the steps taken to have the loan account settled, the petitioner expressed his willingness to offer Rs.40 lakhs by way of OTS, which subsequently was enhanced to Rs.45 lakhs, as borne by Ext.R1(a), produced along with the statement filed by the respondents 1 to 3. The learned Standing Counsel also submits that the request of the petitioner to have the benefit of OTS has been considered by the High Power Committee (HPC) in its meeting held on 20.7.2009 and the Committee found that, as per the norms for OTS, a minimum sum of Rs.50.50 lakhs was liable to be paid by the petitioner, as against the outstanding liability of Rs.67.55 lakhs, as on that date. It was accordingly, the decision was conveyed to the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner came up with Ext.R1(a) proposal, which was not acceptable to the respondents 1 to 3.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, W.P.(C).No.8453 of 2010 4 the petitioner is ready and willing to file an application to have the benefit of OTS to be reconsidered. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is ready to pay a substantial portion of the outstanding liability forthwith. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner had already been given an opportunity to clear the entire liability by way of OTS and also that the sale is scheduled to be held tomorrow, this Court does not find it necessary to intercept with the sale, except for the confirmation of the same, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on or before the 31st of March 2010 and another Rs.5 lakhs on or before the 15th of April 2010. On satisfying the 1st installment, the petitioner may file a petition within 1 week thereafter, before the respondents 1 to 3, for considering the OTS to be revived; on which event, it shall be caused to be reconsidered and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner will be W.P.(C).No.8453 of 2010 5 bound to satisfy the balance liability accordingly. The outcome of the sale and confirmation of the same will be subject to the further orders to be passed as above.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE nl

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court