Disposed

Jose Thomas v. Kerala Financial Corporation

Kerala HC6 Nov 2014WP(C)/24345/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, a managing partner of a nature resort, sought quashing of demand notices and a direction to the Kerala Financial Corporation to reschedule a defaulted loan. The Court directed the respondent to consider the representation and pass an order within six weeks without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation to reschedule loan and pass appropriate orders within six weeks offering hearing.

Jose Thomas Vs Kerala Financial Corporation — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/15TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 24345 of 2014 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JOSE THOMAS, MANAGING PARTNER, HILL VIEW VALLEY NATURE RESORTS, PUTHUPADI, KOZHIKODE

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANGING DIRECTOR

¶11

2. THE CHIEF MANAGER,

¶12

KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, HOTEL MALABAR PALACE BUILDING, GH ROAD, MUTHALAKULAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

¶13

3. THE DEPUTY THASILDAR(RR),

¶14

KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, HOTEL MALABAR PALACE BUILDING, GH ROAD, MUTHALAKULAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

¶15

R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE, SC, KFC R3 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

mbr/

¶18

WP(C).No. 24345 of 2014 (P)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXHIBIT P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED. EXHIBIT P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21/8/2014. EXHIBIT P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 7/7/2014 IN FORM NO.1. EXHIBIT P3(A): A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 7/7/2014 IN FORM NO.10.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: - NIL ---------------------------------------

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

mbr/

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 24345 of 2014 (P)

¶28

Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2014

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Petitioner has approached this Court, with the following

¶31

prayers :

¶32

(i) to call for the records relating to P3 and P3(a) Demand Notices of the 3^rd respondent and to quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or order;

¶33

(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate Writ direction or order, directing the 1^st respondent to consider P2 representation and to re-schedule the loan repayment by granting the petitioner at least 6 months time to start repayment of the defaulted amount;

¶34

(iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate Writ direction or order, for bearing the 3^rd respondent from proceeding against the movable or immovable assets of the partnership firm Hill View Valley Nature Resorts pursuant to P3 and P3(a) Demand Notices.

¶35

(iv) to issue such other writ, direction or

¶36

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 24345 of 2014 (P)

¶38

order as this Honourable Court deems just and proper; and

¶39

(v) to award cost.

¶40

2.The case of the petitioner is that, he is the Managing

¶41

Partner of the firm run under the name and style as 'Hill View Valley Nature Resorts'. Earlier, the unit was being operated by one Mr.Joseph Thomas and his wife Leelamma Joseph. It was subsequently, that the petitioner was inducted as a partner, as borne by Ext.P1. The other partners, pursuant to the induction of the petitioner as Managing Partner, are not much interested in running the unit. Because of earnest efforts taken by the petitioner, the unit has been revived and is generating funds and is discharging liability under various heads.

¶42

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that, the loan already

¶43

disbursed to the establishment requires to be rescheduled, for which the petitioner has already approached the first respondent by filing Ext.P2 representation. The prayer is only to cause the same to

¶44

W.P.(C) No. 24345 of 2014 (P)

¶45

¶46

be considered and disposed of.

¶47

4.Heard, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents as well, who submits with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit filed that, a total sum of `5,08,21,707/- is due under two different loans. Inability was expressed from the part of the petitioner to satisfy the due amount, in spite of several discussions as stated in paragraph No.9 of the said counter affidavit.

¶48

5.When the matter came up before this Court on 28.10.2014, the following interim order was passed :

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to earnest efforts taken, the unit is being revived and will be ready for operation within no time. It is stated that the petitioner is ready to offer additional security, and to prove the bonafides, he is also ready to effect a lump sum payment so as to consider the request of the petitioner to have the loan rescheduled.

¶50

The learned standing counsel for the respondents seeks time to get instructions. Post next week.

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 24345 of 2014 (P)

¶52

¶53

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that, the attempt being made by the petitioner is to make the unit viable and to discharge the entire liability to the respondents and it is in the said context, that the rescheduling of the loan is sought for. It is stated that the petitioner is ready to deposit a sum of `50 Lakhs by the end of January and that he is also ready to furnish additional security to the satisfaction of the respondents for causing Ext.P2 to be considered.

¶54

7.After hearing both the sides, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of the case. The first respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and communicate the outcome. This shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within 'six weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶55

8.It will be open for the petitioner to meet the

¶56

¶57

W.P.(C) No. 24345 of 2014 (P)

¶58

requirements to the extent, if any accommodation is given, with regard to the grievance sought to be redressed.

¶59

9.The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 1^st respondent for further steps.

¶60

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶63

AMV/07/11/

Jose Thomas v. Kerala Financial Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose Thomas v. Kerala Financial Corporation

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

Chellamma Gandhi Vs Sri.T.Bhaskaran

Zibitt Software Technologies Pvt.Ltd Vs Issac K.Thayyil

Vilasini Vs K.a.Francis

Kiraj Jose Vs State Bank of Travancore

Muneer.K Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Reghunathan Nair Vs the Authorised Officer