Writ appeals against the dismissal of writ petitions seeking declarations and directions for ECLG Scheme benefits before banking respondents were dismissed simplicitor as withdrawn by the appellant's counsel.
Writ appeals dismissed as withdrawn by the appellant's counsel.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W. A. Nos. 639 and 651 of 2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 15TH ASWINA, 1944
WA NO. 639 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 24783/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
BY ADVS R.S.KALKURA
HARISH GOPINATH
RESPONDENT/S:
W. A. Nos. 639 and 651 of 2022
-2-
5 UNION OF INDIA REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES 3RD FLOOR, JEEVANDEEP BUILDING, SANSADMARG, NEW DELHI-110001
BY ADVS
B. PRAMOD
PAULOCHAN ANTONY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2022, ALONG WITH WA.651/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W. A. Nos. 639 and 651 of 2022
-3-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 15TH ASWINA, 1944
WA NO. 651 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTWP(C) 1615/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
BY ADVS R.S.KALKURA
HARISH GOPINATH
RESPONDENT/S:
W. A. Nos. 639 and 651 of 2022
-4-
DELHI - 110057, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY ADVS
PAULOCHAN ANTONY
MINI GOPINATH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2022, ALONG WITH WA.639/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W. A. Nos. 639 and 651 of 2022
-5-
J U D G M E N T
S. Manikumar, C. J.
Before the writ court, in W. P. (C) No. 24783 of 2020, appellants in W. A. No. 639 of 2022 have sought for the following reliefs:-
“i. Declare that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit conferred under Exhibit P3 and that the respondents 3 and 4 are bound to provide financial assistance to the extent covered by Exhibit P3 by the petitioners by providing additional loan;
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction of the nature of mandamus directing respondents 3 and 4 to grant the benefit of financial assistance as envisaged under Exhibit P3 to the petitioners or in the alternative direct respondents 1 and 2 to oversee that respondents 3 and 4 grant the benefits envisaged under Exhibit P3 to the petitioners within a time limit to be prescribed by this Hon'ble court.”
“i. Declare that Exhibit P10 is grossly illegal and wrong as the same is opposed to the terms prescribed in Exhibit P3;
ii. Declare that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit conferred under Exhibit P3 and that the respondents 3 and 4 are
W. A. Nos. 639 and 651 of 2022
-6-
bound to provide financial assistance to the extent covered by Exhibit P3 by the petitioners by providing additional loan;
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction of the nature of mandamus directing respondents 3 and 4 to grant the benefit of financial assistance as envisaged under Exhibit P3 to the petitioners or in the alternative direct respondents 1 and 2 to oversee that respondents 3 and 4 grant the benefits envisaged under Exhibit P3 to the petitioners within a time limit to be prescribed by this Hon'ble court.”
“9. The statement filed by respondents 3 and 4 indicates that during the financial year 2018-'19 onwards, the loan account of the 1st petitioner showed default in payment of the monthly instalments as per the terms of the agreement. Respondents 3 and 4 would state that the cheques given for the repayment of the monthly instalments were continuously bounced from 2018 onwards and the repayment track record of the 1st petitioner is worsening.
W. A. Nos. 639 and 651 of 2022
-7-
petitioner made Ext.P7 request for benefit under ECLGS. Ext.P7 request made by the 1st petitioner, inter alia, states as follows:-
“As a part of the over all poor economic scenario and the Covid-19 pandemic, the turnover and cash flow has terribly go down and we are taking all possible measures to recover from this situation. In order to ensure mutual benefit, I would like to request you to grant us the facility of ECLG Scheme and the fund so obtained can be diverted to the repayment of the EMI. This will enable us to make the repayment of the EMI and once the scenario becomes normal, everything can be regularised also.”
Therefore, it is evident that the 1st petitioner had applied for financial assistance under the Scheme not towards working capital but to divert the funds for remittance of EMIs which are already in arrears.
The writ petitions are therefore dismissed.”
W. A. Nos. 639 and 651 of 2022
-8-
of the learned counsel was invited to the judgment rendered in the writ petitions, on merits, Mr. R. S. Kalkura, learned counsel for the appellants, sought permission to withdraw the writ appeals simplicitor.
Placing on record the above submission, writ appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE
Eb
///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE
Mylath Sandeep
Deepa P.
Reserve Bank of India
National Credit Guarantee Trustee Company Ltd.
Hero Fin Crop Ltd.
Union of India
S. Manikumar
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
