Dismissed

Jimmy Jose v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC9 Dec 2014WP(C)/14001/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners approached the High Court challenging enforcement of recovery proceedings by the Electricity Board for company liabilities. The Court noted petitioners failed to honour a previous commitment to liquidate debt. Discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined, and the writ petition dismissed as petitioners had no fresh ground for interference.

What did the court decide?

Interference declined; writ petition dismissed. No coercive steps abeyance granted.

Jimmy Jose Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 14001 of 2014 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. JIMMY JOSE, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O LATE JOSE THOMAS, G 245, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 36.

¶8

2. MILKAMMA JOSE, AGED 74 YEARS W/O LATE JOSE THOMAS, G 245, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 36.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.ADARSH KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

2. SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶14

3. TEHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 11.

¶15

4. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, (PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATOR OF SOUTH INDIA WIRES & ROPES LIMITED COMPANY LAW BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 37.)

¶16

5. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542.

¶17

6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 31.

¶18

R1, R2 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC

¶19

R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.MONI

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

msv/

¶22

WP(C).No. 14001 of 2014 (A)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 31.05.2012 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.02.2013.

¶27

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE THREATENING ATTACHMENT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 13.02.2013.

¶28

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR'S (RR) NOTICE BY THE 1ST PETITIONER VIDE A COMMUNICATION DATED 22.02.2013.

¶29

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION MADE BY THE THAHASILDAR TO THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE) DATED 26.06.2013.

¶30

EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION TO THE 1ST, 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.03.2014.

¶31

EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 23.04.2014.

¶32

EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 13.05.2014.

¶33

EXHIBIT 9 : TRUE COPY OF THE FURTHER COMMUNICATION BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE TAHSILDAR (RR) DATED 16.05.2014.

¶34

EXHIBIT P9(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE) KSEB DATED 16.05.2014.

¶35

EXHIBIT P10 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.13964/12 DATED 05.09.2012.

¶36

EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS OF SOUTH INDIA WIRES AS ON 20.12.2005

¶37

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Ms v/

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶43

W.P.(C) No.14001 of 2014

¶44

Dated this the 9^th day of December, 2014.

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

The petitioners have approached this Court with the

¶47

following prayers:

¶48

“i) Call for the records leading to the passing of exhibit P8 order and to quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶49

ii) Issue a Writ of mandamus or other appropriate Writ, direction or order directing respondents 2-3 to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P9 and P9(a) representations made before it and to keep the coercive steps initiated against the petitioners in abeyance, till such time that the same is completed and favourable orders are issued and communicated to the petitioners and in particular the 1^st petitioner.

¶50

iii) Issue such other orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and fairness, as also the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶51

The basic contention raised in the writ petition is that,

¶52

steps are being pursued at the instance of the respondent Board, moving the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act, for realisation of the amount allegedly due from the concerned Company, of which the 1^st petitioner happens to be a Director and shareholder, while the 2^nd petitioner is the mother of the 1^st petitioner. The contention is that, there is absolutely no rhyme or

¶53

W.P.(C) No.14001 of 2014

¶54

¶55

reason to proceed against the petitioners in person, as there cannot be any personal liability, but for the liability of the Company.

¶56

When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on an earlier occasion, reference was made to Ext.P10 judgment, whereby the 1^st petitioner at that point of time, volunteered to satisfy the entire liability on his own. The submission made by the 1^st petitioner was accepted and relief was extended to the petitioner, permitting to liquidate the liability as specified therein, reserving the rights and liberties of the Board to proceed with further steps, if the commitment was not honoured. It was accordingly, that a detailed interim order was passed by this Court on 25.09.2014. In order to avoid repetition, the said order, which gives the sequence of events, is extracted below:

¶57

“Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as other parties at length.

¶58

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that earnest efforts are being taken to settle the entire liability; simultaneously moving the Company Court as well for appropriate reliefs under the Scheme for Revival. The alleged grievance is with regard to the steps taken by the concerned respondent against the personal assets of the petitioner .

¶59

3. The fact remains that the first petitioner herein had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 13964 of 2012

¶60

W.P.(C) No.14001 of 2014

¶61

¶62

as a representative of the Company (who was the former Director of the Company) volunteering to liquidate the liability, once the amount is re-worked, reckoning the principal amount as Rs.29,59,453/- plus interest payable at the rates as specified. The said submission was considered by another learned Judge of this Court, leading to finalisation of the said writ petition, as per Ext.P10 judgment, specifically incorporating a default clause, enabling the respondent Board to proceed with, if the liability was not settled.

¶63

4. Admittedly, the commitment was not honoured and the amount was not deposited by the petitioner in terms of Ext.P10 judgment. Hence further steps, on the basis of the requisition made by the Electricity Board; which in turn are under challenge, mainly contending that the petitioners' personal assets are not liable to be proceeded against.

¶64

5. After hearing both the sides, this Court prima facie finds it difficult to entertain the writ petition. Ext.P10 is almost in the form of an agreed judgment. If the petitioner is desirous to widen the scope of Ext.P10 judgment, the circumstances which led to said judgment have to be analysed and appreciated. This Court finds it difficult to undertake such an exercise, as this Court cannot re-write or modify the said verdict.

¶65

6. Considering the persuasive submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that all earnest efforts will be taken to liquidate the liability under some or other scheme, if one month's time is provided, this Court finds it fit and proper to give one more chance to the petitioner. List the matter for further consideration on 27.10.2014. Interim order already passed by this Court will continue till such time.”

¶66

The matter came up for further consideration before this

¶67

Court on 27.10.2014, when the following interim order was

¶68

passed:

¶69

“ The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that a scheme has already been filed and the matter stands listed for further consideration on 30.10.2014. It is stated that negotiations are going on and that the matter will be

¶70

W.P.(C) No.14001 of 2014

¶71

¶72

finalised, at any rate, within one month.

¶73

2. Post on 28.11.2014.

¶74

3. No further adjournment will be given under any circumstance."

¶75

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that,

¶76

some scheme is being worked out to satisfy the liability of all concerned, in connection with the issue projected before this Court with reference to C.P. No.28 of 2012 and the concerned Company Applications preferred therein.

¶77

The learned Standing Counsel for the Board submits that, extensive benefit has already been extended to the petitioners while passing Ext.P10 judgment, enabling the petitioners to clear the liability under ‘OTS Scheme’, whereby the rate of interest, which actually was 24% up to 2007, was subsequently reduced to

¶78

6%. If the matter is to be taken up along with the case of the secured creditors and the Company matters, the liability may go above One Crore.

¶79

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator, this Court does not find it necessary to retain the matter any further. To say the least, the commitment given by the

¶80

W.P.(C) No.14001 of 2014

¶81

¶82

petitioners before this Court, leading to Ext.P10 judgment, stands not honoured.

¶83

This being the position, this is not a fit case to call for interference, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶84

Interference is declined and the writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.

¶85

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶86

Jimmy Jose v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jimmy Jose v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

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

Auria Keim Vs Padmakumar IPS

Jayan Vs the Authorised Officer

Assistant Executive Engineer Vs the Principal Agricultural Officer

Ibrahim Kutty Vs O Mohammed Aslam

K.T.Velayudhan Vs Prof (Dr.)v.N.Rajasekharan Pillai

M/S.Sandeepani Smart Village Vs the Syndicate Bank