Disposed

Hope Plantations v. K.S.I.D.C.

Kerala HC12 Jul 2017WP(C)/702/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a refusal by a lending Corporation to accept a committee's recommendation for a one-time settlement. The Court permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh representation for consideration under the Corporation's policy.

What did the court decide?

Permitting the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation before the first respondent for one-time settlement and directing the respondent to consider it within two months of receipt.

Hope Plantations Vs K.S.I.D.C. — Kerala HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶2

-------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.702 of 2015

¶3

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

¶4

Dated this the 12^th day of July, 2017

¶5

J U D G M E N T

¶6

The petitioner has availed a loan from the first respondent Corporation. When large amounts were due to the first respondent from the petitioner in connection with the said loan transaction, the petitioner preferred an application before the first respondent for one time settlement facility. The application was though recommended by the committee constituted by the first respondent for the said purpose, the Board of Directors of the first respondent has not accepted the recommendations of the committee. The decision taken by the Board of Directors of the first respondent in this connection is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶7

W.P.(c).No.702 of 2015

¶8

: 2 :

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the proposal made by them has not been accepted since there is sufficient security for the outstanding dues. Relying on the one time settlement policy of the first respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the benefit of the one time settlement facility should not have been denied to the petitioner merely for the reason that there is sufficient security for the outstanding dues.

¶11

Ext.P11 is the one time settlement policy of the first respondent Corporation. The relevant clauses of Ext.P11 policy which are relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner read thus:

¶12

However, in deserving cases, especially that of running units, OTS can be considered even below the Distress Value where KSIDC feels that the promoter cannot pay more than what he has finally offered, considering into account pending statutory dues, financial position of the promoter, present condition of the real estate market, present value of the OTS offer given the long period perceived to realize dues through coercive action along with the risk of depreciation/obsolesce of fixed assets, plight of the industry

¶13

W.P.(c).No.702 of 2015

¶14

: 3 :

¶15

in general etc.

¶16

Wherever any deserving case, be it for loan and/or share investment, does not strictly come within the parameters outlined OTS under the proposed policy, the case for OTS may be put up and the Board may consider the same on merits.”

¶17

In the light of the aforesaid provisions in the one time settlement policy, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation before the first respondent for one time settlement, and directing the first respondent to consider the same in the light of the policy, within two months from the date of

¶18

receipt of the representation.

¶19

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶20

rsr

Hope Plantations v. K.S.I.D.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hope Plantations v. K.S.I.D.C.

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

Hari Shankar Mohan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Nimisha Elizabeth Vs the State of Kerala

Chandran.a Vs Majalisul Hidaya Charitable Trust

Mathew Mohan Vs the Tahasildar, Ottappalam

Hope Plantations Vs Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation

R.Viswanathan Vs State of Kerala