TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 496
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onditions. These loans were granted after cancellation of the earlier limits with a view to nurse respondent No. 1 which was a sick unit. In order to secure the advance, the Managing Director of respondent No. 1, that is respondent No. 2 and the other Directors executed several documents as securities and respondent No. 2 also mortgaged his property to the Bank as a collateral security. As the respondent No. 1 defaulted in the repayment of the loan, the Bank filed a suit for recovery (O.S. No. 732/1987) in the Trichur Civil Court seeking a decree for Rs. 1,19,832.63 with interest at the rate of 12.5 per cent per annum in the term loan account and Rs. 2,09,120.75 in the overdraft account with interest at the rate of 16 per cent per annum com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also filed a Pauper Petition (No. 19/1993) in the Sub-Court, Trichur claiming damages of about Rs. 30 lakhs from the Bank with 18 per cent and 100 per cent ex gratia payment on several grounds. This suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 15-11-1995 and an application for its restoration was also dismissed on 6-6-1997. As no further proceedings were taken by the judgment-debtors, these orders attained finality as well. It appears that while this spate of litigation was continuing, the judgment-debtor filed various objections (during the year 1994-97) in E.P. No. 819/1991 alleging that the decree was not executable, and amongst others, two objection petitions being E.A. No. 847/1997 and 1197/1997 were filed claiming the protection and bene....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....la Financial Corporation and that the proceedings in O.S. No. 732/1987 were without jurisdiction and, therefore, null and void and consequently the decree in EP 819/1991 too was not enforceable. The Civil Revision and the Civil Writ Petition were heard together and both were allowed vide order dated 11-4-2001 with the High Court observing that though the benefits of section 18FH of the Regulation Act and section 22 of the SICA were not available to the judgment-debtor but they were entitled to succeed on other issues and concluded that : "The petitioner has filed CRP 2315/98 challenging the common order passed by the execution court in E.A. 847/97 and E.A. 1197/97 in E.P. 819/91 in O.S. 732/87. The petitioner was the judgment debtor in O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial conscience. In the above circumstances for the ends of justice this court is constrained to interfere and to undo the injustice caused to the petitioner and to save both the industry and the Managing Director of the industry by setting aside the order of taking over the industry and the court sale of the property. The entire amount deposited by the 4th respondent towards price of the auctioned property with 5 per cent of the above amount and interest at 6 per cent from the date of deposit till return shall be paid by the 3rd respondent bank to the 4th respondent. The bank also will have to consider the grant of interest holiday for the period during which the industry had been under the possession of the KFC in pursuance to the take ov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Bank and the Kerala Financial Corporation and has also submitted a large number of documents in support of this submission. He has also pointed out that the State Government had taken steps towards the revival of his unit and as such, there was no justification in interfering with the order of the High Court. 6. Before we go to the issues raised, we reproduce here the final directions of the High Court : "(1)The order of the 2nd respondent KFC taking possession of the industrial unit New Look Rubbers (P.) Ltd. (petitioner company) is set aside and the KFC is directed to surrender possession of the industrial unit to the petitioner forthwith. (2)The 2nd respondent (KFC) shall grant interest holiday for the period from the date ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d E.A. No. 1197/97 had been filed with regard to the applicability of section 22(1) of SICA and section 18FH of the Regulation Act and in the meanwhile, the property mortgaged was sold in execution of the decree. The aforesaid objection petitions were dismissed on 21-7-1998. It is against the order in E.A. No. 1197/1997 that the present revision was filed. We are therefore of the opinion that in the light of the issues decided by the Civil Court in the various litigations which were allowed to become final and as the decree had already been executed inasmuch that the mortgaged property has been sold, the directions issued by the High Court are clearly not warranted. We are also of the opinion that there can be no objection to the revival of....