W.A No. 1230 of 1997 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 24 Oct 2007
- Bench
- K M JOSEPH
Outcome
Disposed of
(7) Taking note of the statement made by the learned counsel,these Writ Appeals and the Writ Petition are disposed of as having becomeunnecessary for the present
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33.THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,VELLAYAMBALAM,TRIVANDRUM,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. R2 & R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.PATHROSE MATHAI (SR.ADV.) ADV. SMT.MARIAM MATHAI ADV.SRI.SAJI VARGHESE. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2007, ALONG WITH W.A NO.1229 OF 1997 & CONNECTED…
Judgment
W.A.NO.1230 OF 1997-C- 2 - RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------------------------ 1.STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY,INDUSTRIES (J) DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE,TRIVANDRUM.
THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,KESTON ROAD,KAWDIAR,TRIVANDRUM - 695 003,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,VELLAYAMBALAM,TRIVANDRUM,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. R2 & R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.PATHROSE MATHAI (SR.ADV.) ADV. SMT.MARIAM MATHAI ADV.SRI.SAJI VARGHESE. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2007, ALONG WITH W.A NO.1229 OF 1997 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.M.Joseph,J.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------W.A.Nos.1230 of 1997-C, 1229 of 1997-C, 1231 of 1997-D &W.P.(C).No.25600 of 2003-V---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dated, this the 24th day of October, 2007JUDGMENTH.L.Dattu,C.J. The applications filed in the appeals to implead the legal heirs of deceased M.S.Ahmed, the then Managing Partner of the appellant Company, are allowed.
(2) In our opinion, the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd.,Thiruvananthapuram, which has filed impleading applications in the appeals, is not a necessary party for effective disposal of the Writ Appeals. Therefore the said applications are rejected. (3) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals and the writ petition, they are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this common order. (4) In all these appeals and the writ petition, the primary grievance of the appellant/petitioner is against the action of the Kerala StateIndustrial Development Corporation (“Corporation” for short) in initiating proceedings under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 to take over the mortgaged assets of the appellant Company and effecting sale of the same for realisation of the amounts due to the Corporation. Theconsequential relief sought for is, for a direction to the respondents to pass anappropriate order on the application filed by the appellant for grant of OneTime Settlement benefit under the One Time Settlement Scheme.
Operative part
(5) During the pendency of these Writ Appeals and the WritPetition, there is an understanding between the appellant and the 2ndrespondent for grant of One Time Settlement benefit. WA.No.1230/1997 &connected cases.- 2 -(6) In view of the Minutes of the Meeting held by the PrincipalSecretary (Industries) on 4.10.2007, Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner would submit that for the present he would not be pressing for any relief in these appeals and the writ petition; and further requests this Court to reserve liberty to the appellant/petitioner to approach this Court again, if need arises in future. (7) Taking note of the statement made by the learned counsel, these Writ Appeals and the Writ Petition are disposed of as having become unnecessary for the present. Liberty is reserved to the appellant/petitioner to approach this Court again, if they so desires and if need arises in future. (8) I.A.Nos.10404 of 2003 and 14234 of 2007 in W.P.(C).No.25600 of 2003 for accepting additional documents are allowed. (9) All other pending interim applications shall stand rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice K.M.Joseph Judgevku/-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: (7) Taking note of the statement made by the learned counsel,these Writ Appeals and the Writ Petition are disposed of as having becomeunnecessary for the present
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 — s. 29.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 24 Oct 2007. The bench was K M JOSEPH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.