Disposed

Kumarkom Aquaserene Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation

Kerala HC28 Mar 2022WP(C)/8230/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction to the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation to reconsider the petitioner's application for a One Time Settlement (OTS) and restructure payment terms due to pandemic-related hardships. The Court directed the Corporation to consider the application in accordance with OTS Rules if the required 10% deposit is made. No further restructuring of instalments was

What did the court decide?

The Petitioner's application for OTS under Ext.P5 shall be considered by the Respondent in accordance with law and Rules, provided the Petitioner deposits 10% of the OTS amount. The request to restruc

Kumarkom Aquaserene Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kerala State Industrial… — Corruption | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 8230 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

KUMARKOM AQUASERENE PVT LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJEEV V.K.,
AGED 53 YEARS, SON OF KUNJUKUNJU, VETTOOR, 4/125,
KUDAVACHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 144,
RESIDING AT VETTOOR HOUSE, 4/125, ACHINAKOM,
KUDAVACHOOR P.O., VAIKOM TALUK,
KOTTAYAM-686 144., PIN - 686144
BY ADVS.
P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
T.S.HARIKUMAR
G.N.DEEPA

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, T.C. XI/266,
KESTON ROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.,
PIN – 695003

¶9

SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN (SC)

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C) NO. 8230 OF 2022
 2

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

Dated this the 28^th day of March, 2022

¶14

The petitioner, who owns a Resort in Kumarakom in Kottayam District, has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the respondent to re-consider Ext.P4 decision and restructure the One Time Settlement (OTS), which was granted as per Ext.P3 in such a manner so as to pay the amount in 12 equal monthly instalments starting from April, 2023 and full settlement before 31^st March, 2024.

¶15

The petitioner states that he started a Resort availing financial assistance from the respondent-Corporation. Due to pandemic situation, business failed and the petitioner decided to sell the Resort and repay the loan amount. The petitioner agreed for a One Time Settlement. However the same was not materialised.

¶16

The petitioner states that if the petitioner is allowed

¶17

to pay the OTS amount accepted in Ext.P4 decision and

¶18

WP(C) NO. 8230 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

restructure the OTS, which was granted as per Ext.P3 in such a manner so as to pay the OTS amount in 12 equal monthly intalments starting from April, 2023, the amounts can be settled fully.

¶21

The learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent entered appearance and submitted that for participating in the OTS Scheme, the petitioner has to remit 10% of the outstanding amount and whatever be the OTS amount, it should be paid on before 31.03.2022. According to the petitioner, he may not be able to pay the entire amount by 31.03.2022. Nevertheless if the petitioner is permitted to participate in the OTS Scheme, whatever be the amounts offered under the Scheme, the petitioner will be able to pay in instalements soon thereafter.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶23

and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent.

¶24

WP(C) NO. 8230 OF 2022

¶25

¶26

After hearing the parties on either side, this Court

¶27

finds that an OTS Scheme of the respondent is now current and any debtors can avail the benefit of OTS if 10% of the OTS is paid and other conditions are satisfeid.

¶28

In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that

¶29

the respondent can consider the request of the petitioner under OTS Scheme in accordance with law and in accordance

¶30

with the Rules governing the OTS Scheme .

¶31

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of ordering that if the petitioner deposits 10% of the OTS amount, the petitioner’s application for OTS under Ext.P5 shall be considered in accordance with law and as per the Rules governing the OTS Scheme.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8230/2022

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

Exhibit.P.1.TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT MADE IN
ECONOMIC TIMES ON 10-12-2020
Exhibit.P.2TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 11-
02-2021
Exhibit.P.3TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 23-
03-2021
Exhibit.P.4TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL SENT BY THE
DEPUTY MANAGER, TO THE MANAGING
DIRECTOR OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY,
DATED 24-02-2022
Exhibit.P.5TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT, DATED 08-
03-2022

Kumarkom Aquaserene Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumarkom Aquaserene Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerala State Industrial Development 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

Sebastian Thomas Chiramel Vs State Bank of India SBI

Saleema Vs Arun Kumar B.

Ragsippi v.I., Vs State of Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Sericulture Co-Op. Society Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Neyyattinkara Taluk Sericulture Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Mansoorali Vs the Administrator