Partly allowed

Mahesh Sivadas v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jul 2024WP(C)/25895/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner invested in Willingdon Island Resorts LLP without receiving promised returns. After filing a representation under the Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act which remained undecided, the High Court of Kerala directed the competent authority to process the representation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to take up the Ex.P4 representation and do the needful within two months of receipt of the judgment.

Mahesh Sivadas Vs the State of Kerala — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 25895 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

MAHESH SIVADAS AGED 38 YEARS S/O. SIVADAS, SR NIVAS, KALLISSERY P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689124 BY ADV K.RAKESH

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001

¶9

2 THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001

¶10

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001

¶11

4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, CHENGANNUR P.O., ALAPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689121

¶12

5 ABDUL NAZER N.P. S/O. MUHAMMED ALI, NELLAYA PUTHENPEEDIKAKKAL HOUSE, THAZHEKODE WEST P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, DESIGNATED PARTNER OF WILLINGDON ISLAND RESORTS LLP., 32/1946H, VENTURA, 4TH FLOOR, NH-47 BY-PASS, EDAPPALLY P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679352

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR. GP.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶16

ON 19.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶17

FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C) No.25895 of 2024

¶19

-2-

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 19^th day of July, 2024

¶22

The petitioner has invested Rs.11,00,000/- in

¶23

the 5^th respondent's project named 'M/s.Willingdon Island Resorts LLP'. The investment was made on the assurance that, in addition to other benefits, the petitioner will get return of Rs.1,00,000/- up to 12 years commencing from November, 2020 to October, 2022. Ext.P1 is the agreement executed by the petitioner and the 5^th respondent in this regard. Contrary to the promise made, the amount was not repaid to the petitioner. On enquiry, the petitioner came to understand that the 5^th respondent had defrauded large number of investors in similar manner. The petitioner therefore submitted Ext.P4 representation before the competent authority under the Banning of

¶24

W.P.(C) No.25895 of 2024

¶25

-3-

¶26

Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act (BUDS Act), with a

¶27

request to initiate expeditious action against the 5^th respondent. The competent authority having

¶28

not taken decision on the representation, this writ petition is filed.

¶29

I heard the learned Counsel for the

¶30

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶31

Considering the limited relief sought, the

¶32

writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to take up Ext.P4

¶33

representation and do the needful within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

Scl/

W.P.(C) No.25895 of 2024

¶38

-4-

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25895/2024

¶40

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶41

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 26-6-2020
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12-7-2024
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 12-7-2024
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12-07-2024

Mahesh Sivadas v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Sivadas v. the State of Kerala

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

C.C Ambika Devi Vs District Police Chief Ernakulam

Kerala State Lottery Agents and Sellers Welfare Board Vs C.N.Purushothaman

Mathew Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

Edakkara Gramin Nidhi Limited, Vs Union of India

Srisouhruda Nidhi Limited, Vs Union of India

Jayesh Kumar T S Vs Icici Bank Ltd.