Disposed

K.a.Devarajan v. the Industrial Development Bank

Kerala HC13 Oct 2011WP(C)/11305/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a writ petition by a film producer seeking direction to release a film after banking respondents withheld clearance, the Court directed the petitioner to furnish the representation copy to the Second Respondent. The Second Respondent was ordered to consider the claim and pass orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to supply representation copy to 2nd Respondent; 2nd Respondent to consider claim and pass orders within four weeks.

K.a.Devarajan Vs the Industrial Development… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 11305 of 2011(K) ---------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

-------------------

¶8

K.A.DEVARAJAN, S/O.APPU, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.KARIMBIL FILMS, 4/528A, JOSEPH ROAD, CALICUT-673 032.

¶9

BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. SRI.S.SUJIN, SMT.NITA.N.S.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

------------------------

¶12

1. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD., IDBI TOWER, WORLD TRADE CENTRE COMPLEX, CUFFE PARADE, BOMBAY-400 005, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER.

¶13

2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD., IDBI TOWER, WORLD TRADE CENTRE COMPLEX, CUFFE PARADE, BOMBAY-400 005.

¶14

3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD., IDBI TOWER, WORLD TRADE CENTRE COMPLEX, CUFFE PARADE, BOMBAY-400 005.

¶15

4. M/S.RELIANCE MEDIA WORKS LTD., NO.9A, KUMARAM COLONY, MAIN ROAD, VADAPALANY, CHENNAI-600 026, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMASS.C.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C).NO.11305/2011-K:

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE FIRM OF THE PETITIONER.

¶22

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR FINANCE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FIRM TO THE R.1. BANK.

¶23

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. LCB/KARIMB/449 DTD. 31/01/2007.

¶24

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE R.1. BANK.

¶25

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NEWS PUBLISHED IN THIS REGARD IN VARIOUS MAGAZINES.

¶26

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 15/01/2011 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. BANK.

¶27

EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE BANK REQUESTING EXTENSION OF THE INSURANCE POLICY OF THE FILM.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶29

EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE ONE OF THE SANCTION LETTER DTD. 31/01/2007 FOR THE LOAN OF RS.167 LAKHS.

¶30

EXTT.R1.B: COPY OF THE SANCTION LETTER FOR THE LOAN OF RS.60 LAKHS DTD. 22/12/2008.

¶31

EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 03/09/2010 ISSUED BY R.1. TO PETITIONER.

¶32

EXT.R1.D: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 25/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER.

¶33

EXT.R1.E: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10/02/2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

Prv.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 11305 OF 2011

¶39

Dated this the 13^th day of October, 2011

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

Petitioner is a film producer. It appears that availing

¶42

of financial assistance from respondents 1 to 3, he has produced a film by name “Swapnamalika”. The film was processed in the lab of the 4^th respondent. The arrangement between the petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 and the 4^th respondent is that only with the clearance of respondents 1 to 3 the film will be released by the 4^th respondent to the petitioner for exhibition in the theaters. Such clearance was not granted and that led the petitioner to file this writ petition praying to direct respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner to get the film released from the 4^th respondent.

¶43

Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit disputing the claim of the petitioner. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned senior counsel appearing

¶44

W.P.(C) No. 11305 OF 2011

¶45

:2 :

¶46

for the petitioner, confined his prayer for a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation made by the petitioner.

¶47

However, a perusal of Ext.P6 representation shows that this representation is addressed to one Mr.J.F.Alapatt, Deputy General Manager of the first respondent. Since what is now sought for by the petitioner is a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the claim and as Ext.P6 is not addressed to the said officer, it is directed that the petitioner should make available a copy of the said representation to the 2^nd respondent, in which event the same will be considered and orders thereon will be passed by the 2^nd respondent as expeditiously as possible at any rate within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶48

The petitioner shall also produce a copy of this writ petition for the perusal of the 2^nd respondent.

¶49

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶50

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/[true copy] P.S. to Judge

K.a.Devarajan v. the Industrial Development Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.a.Devarajan v. the Industrial Development Bank

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

V.P.Radhakrishnan Vs Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu Taluk & Others

Indus Consumer Products Pvt.Ltd. Vs Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors.

Nikhil Johnson Vs the Director Ministry of Minority

Jithin.C.Raj Vs State of Kerala and Others

Rafi Ahammed Vs Dt.Collector

Shamsudeen Vs Tahsildar, Kottarakara