Dismissed

Secretary, Industries Department v. I.F.C.I

Kerala HC6 Dec 2011RP/67/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a review petition filed by the Government of Kerala challenging a judgment that directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal to dispose of a matter related to Travancore Rayons Ltd., subject to government observations regarding rehabilitation.

What did the court decide?

The Review Petition is dismissed subject to observations that Government rehabilitation steps and settlement of claims are not hindered by pending Debts Recovery Tribunal proceedings.

Secretary, Industries Department Vs I.F.C.I — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

RP.No. 67 of 2011 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.31613/2009

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶8

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1,2 AND 4 TO 7:

¶11

1. I.F.C.I.(INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPORATION

¶12

OF INDIA) I.F.C.I. TOWERS, 61 NEHRU PALACE,

¶13

NEW DELHI-110 019, REP. BY R. GOVINDAN, MANAGER (LAW).

¶14

2. TRAVANCORE RAYONS LTD., RAYONPURAM,

¶15

PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

3. INDIAN BANK(HQ), 66, RAJAJI SALAI,CHENNAI-600 001.

¶17

4. I.D.B.I.(INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF

¶18

INDIA), 115, ANNA SALAI,SAIDAPT,CHENNAI-600 015.

¶19

5. I.C.I.C.I. BANK LTD.,(INDUSTRIAL CREDIT

¶20

AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD), NO.1

¶21

CENOTAPH ROAD, CHENNAI-600 015

¶22

6. INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT BANK OF INDIA (INDUSTRIAL RECONSTRUCTION BANK OF INDIA) 19, NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, P.B.NO.16, CALCUTTA-700 001.

¶23

7. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, YOGAKSHEMA, JEEVAN BEEMA MARG, MUMBAI-400 020.

¶24

R1 BY SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.) ADV. SRI.SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR SRI.K.P.SUDHEER R4 BY ADV.SMT.MARIAM MATHAI SRI.SAJI VARGHESE R7 BY ADV.SRI.S.EASWARAN

¶25

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-12-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

R.P.NO.67/2011

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶30

ANNEX A1	COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 16/06/2004
ANNEX A2	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2008
ANNEX A3	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/07/2009
ANNEX A4	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
ANNEX A5	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE RESIDENT COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI DATED 18/11/2011
ANNEX A6	COPY OF THE RECORDINGS OF THE MEETING
ANNEX A7	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FINANCE (EXPENDITURE), BANKING AND INSURANCE),GOVERNMENT OF IND TO THE HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.

¶31

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

¶32

ANNEX R1(A) COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY GOVERNMENT IN O.A.NO.265/2004 ANNEX R1(B) COPY OF THE ADDL WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY GOVERNMENT IN O.A.NO.265/2004.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

C.K. ABDUL REHIM,J.

¶37

R.P No. 67 OF 2011

¶38

DATED THIS THE 6^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

The writ petition was filed by a financial institution which is a creditor of the 1^st respondent company (2^nd respondent in the Review Petition). The prayer in the writ petition was for a direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam for an early disposal of OA No.265/2004. When the writ petition was posted for hearing it was submitted on behalf of the State Government that a decision was arrived to take over the 1^st respondent company and to settle its liabilities in terms of a proposed legislation. On that basis it was submitted that the Government had requested for adjournment of the matter before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. This court found that, in the matter pending befroe the DRT, the creditor is seeking only a declaration settling the liabilities arising out of the financial transaction involved. But execution of order if any passed by DRT will depend on provisions of other statutes. Therefore it was found that the disposal of the matter by the Debts Recovery

¶41

R.P No.67/2011

¶42

-2-

¶43

Trinunal will not interdict with any steps which will betaken by the Government. On that premise the Debts Recovery Tribunal was directed to dispose of O.A. No.265/2004 with a time limit stipulated.

¶44

In this Review Petition, it is stated that, the Government is taking all earnest efforts to rehabilitate the 1^st respondent company and an Ordinance have formulated an ordinance taking over of the 1^st respondent company by way of legislation, and the said ordinance is now pending before the Central Government awaiting concurrence. On the basis of such facts the dispute pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal will be settled under the scheme for rehabilitation

¶45

It is pointed out that a meeting was arranged by the State Government with various financial institutions, who had lent money to the 1^st respondent company, and consensus was already arrived with respect to certain financial institutions. However, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner (1^st respondent in the Review Petition) pointed out that they were not parties to any such

R.P No.67/2011

-3-

settlement.

As observed above, it is already clarified in the judgment that pronouncement of orders by the Debts Recovery Tribunal will not stand in the way of the State Government initiating rehabilitation steps. I make it further clear that if the Government is intending to take over the company, such steps may not be hindered in any manner by the decision of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Further, the Government will be at liberty to settle claims of the writ petitioner in an amicable manner, either before pronouncement of the judgment by the Debts Recovery Tribunal or thereafter at any stage.

¶50

However, I do not find any ground to review the judgment in any manner by holding proceedings which is now pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam.

¶51

Hence the Review Petition is dismissed subject to the above observation.

¶52

C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶53

AMG

Secretary, Industries Department v. I.F.C.I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Secretary, Industries Department v. I.F.C.I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Swamy Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority

Deepa P.S. Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

Abdul Rahiman Vs State of Kerala

K.Rajalakshmi Amma Vs the Tahasildar

Poomangalam Grama Panchayath Vs the Tribunal for Local Self Govt

The Chairman, Rajadhani Institute of Vs University of Kerala