Dismissed

Sukumaran v. the Kerala Khadi & Village Industries

Kerala HC27 May 2016WP(C)/4718/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging recovery notices, the court held that the petitioner could not deny liability for a loan already disbursed before he raised objections. The court dismissed the petition, clarifying that the creditor may choose to proceed against the surety. However, the court directed the Board to consider a one-time settlement option if requested.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed against recovery notices; however, a directive was issued for the Board to consider a one-time settlement upon request.

Sukumaran Vs the Kerala Khadi & Village Industries — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2016/6TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).NO. 4718 OF 2009 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SUKUMARAN, S/O.VELU, CHERUTHALA HOUSE, VALAMBOOR, PATTIKKAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, VANCHIYOOR, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2. THE PROJECT OFFICER

¶12

KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, MALAPPURAM.

¶13

3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA.

¶14

4. V.SURESH BABU, S/O.THAMI, VALIYATHRA HOUSE, UMMATHOOR,, PO.KODOOR,

¶15

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS, SC BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARUNKUMAR KARANAVOR BY SRI.K.P.HARISH,SC,KERALA KHADI BOARD

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).NO. 4718 OF 2009 (J)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.18.11.2000

¶22

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS FATHER TO 1ST RESPONDENT DT.18.11.2001

¶23

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22.07.2008 AS NO.K.B.1354/08/R3(CBC) ISSUED BU THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶24

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 8.8.2008 TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶25

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 2.1.2009

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶27

//TRUE COPY//

¶28

P A TO JUDGE

¶29

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.4718 of 2009

¶30

............................................................. Dated this the 27^th day of May, 2016

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner, along with his father had stood surety to a loan taken by the 4^th respondent, from the 1^st respondent Board, for starting a washing soap manufacturing unit. It is stated that the father of the petitioner is no more. It would appear that, the 4^th respondent defaulted in repayment of the loan amounts to the 1^st respondent Board and consequently, the 1^st respondent took steps against the petitioner for recovery of the loan amounts. Exts.P3 and P5 are the recovery notices issued to the petitioner by the 1^st respondent and the 3^rd respondent respectively, Ext.P5 being a notice under the Revenue Recovery Act. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns Exts.P3 and P5 notices, inter alia, on the ground that, by Ext.P1 representation dated 18.11.2000, the petitioner had informed the 1^st respondent Board of the dubious conduct of the 4^th respondent and requested the 1^st respondent Board not to advance any further amount to the 4^th respondent pursuant to his application for loan. It is stated, therefore, that the petitioner

¶33

-2-

¶34

W.P.(C). No.4718 of 2009

¶35

cannot be made liable for any amount that remained unpaid by the 4^th respondent, if he had availed the same from the 1^st respondent, on dates subsequent to18.11.2000.

¶36

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the 1^st respondent Board and also the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents.

¶37

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent that the entire loan amount of Rs.6,45,300/- was disbursed to the 4^th respondent on 19.05.2000. It is apparent, therefore, that the entire loan amount was disbursed well before 18.11.2000, which is the date on which the petitioner is stated to have made a representation before the 1^st respondent. Inasmuch as the petitioner had stood surety to the loan advanced to the 4^th respondent by the 1^st respondent, the petitioner cannot deny his liability to the 1^st respondent in the amounts advanced to the 4^th respondent since, it is now well settled that the liability of the

¶38

-3-

¶39

W.P.(C). No.4718 of 2009

¶40

surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. It is also well settled that it is the choice of the creditor as to whether he should proceed first against the principal debtor or the surety and in the said decision of the creditor there cannot be any interference by this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless it is shown that the creditor was deliberately not proceeding against the principal debtor at all. Since there is no such allegation in the instant case, I see no merit in the contentions in the writ petition and, for the reasons stated above, I dismiss the writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P3 and P5 notices.

¶41

Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 4^th respondent did not actually commence the business, for which the loan was sanctioned to him, and that the petitioner had stood surety to the loan relying on the false assurances that were given to him by the 4^th respondent, I make it clear that if the petitioner approaches the 1^st respondent within one month from today with a request for a one time settlement option, then the same shall be considered by the 1^st respondent

¶42

-4-

¶43

W.P.(C). No.4718 of 2009

¶44

and its decision intimated to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner.

¶45

The writ petition is disposed as above.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶48

mns/27.05.16

Sukumaran v. the Kerala Khadi & Village Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumaran v. the Kerala Khadi & Village Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.G.Pappachan, Kollam Vs District Collector, Kollam

The Kerala Small Scale Soap Manufacturer Vs State of Kerala

K.Mohanan Vs the Ombudaman for Local Self.Govt

Sri Vidyadhiraja Memorial Model H.S. Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Shajahan Yoosaf Sahib Vs Office of the Insurance Ombudsman

Mathew Manuel Vs State Bank of Travancore