IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.434 OF 2021(D)
PETITIONERS:
1 K.P.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.LATE V.KUTTAN PILLAI, OLAI
CHERIYIL, KURANDIPALLIL HOUSE, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 009.
2 K.P.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR,
S/O.LATE V.KUTTAN PILLAI, OLAI CHERIYIL,
KURANDIPALLIL HOUSE, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN-691 009.
3 K.P.SREEKUMAR,
S/O.LATE V.KUTTAN PILLAI, OLAI CHERIYIL,
KURANDIPALLIL HOUSE, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN-691 009.
BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SATHISH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY)
KOLLAM, PIN-691 002.
2 THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE),
THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (KSEB), VYDYUTHI
BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
SMT. THUSHARA JAMES - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.434 OF 2021(D)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of January 2021 The petitioners, who are stated to be the members of the Board of Directors of Kaypee Metal and Alloys Private Limited, has approached this Court seeking that the second respondent be directed to lift the attachment of their personal properties, which are specifically referred to in Ext.P5 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.14024/2020 and 20295/2020.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.K.K.Sathish, relying on Ext.P5 judgment, contends that the attachment of the personal properties of his clients are now untenable since the learned Judge of this Court, while delivering the said judgment, has categorically held that "the Managing Director or the Board of Directors of Kaypee Metal and Alloys Private Limited, which is a limited company having distinct entity, cannot be found liable for payment of the dues of the said Company from the personal properties". He submits that Ext.P5 has been accepted by the respondents, no appeal having been filed against it and therefore, that they are now obligated to lift the attachment of the personal properties of his clients.
WP(C).No.434 OF 2021(D) 3
3. In response, the learned Government Pleader Smt.Thushara James, submitted that the attachment over the personal property of the petitioners have been effected by the respondents taking note of the demand made against them by the KSEB but that since Ext.P5 judgment exonerates them from such liability, the respondents are willing to consider their representation, namely Ext.P6 and take a final decision on it in terms of law. She prayed that this writ petition be ordered on such terms.
4. I have considered the afore submissions and have also gone through the materials available on record, particularly Ext.P5 judgment. Prima facie, Ext.P5 makes it clear that the petitioners cannot be held liable for the payment of the dues of the company by charging it from their private properties. The respondents have attached the said properties based on a demand made by the KSEB and obviously, therefore, at least until such time as Ext.P5 is not reversed or modified, the respondents cannot continue to hold the personal properties of the petitioners liable for the said dues.
5. In the afore circumstances, I am certain that Ext.P6 representation of the petitioners must obtain the attention of WP(C).No.434 OF 2021(D) 4 the competent respondent and they must take appropriate action thereon, adverting specifically to the declarations in Ext.P5 judgment.
Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered with a direction to the respondents to take up Ext.P6 representation of the petitioner and to issue appropriate orders thereon, adverting to Ext.P5 judgment implicitly, thus leading to an appropriate order thereon as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
It is needless to say that in the event, the respondents find that the petitioners are eligible to have the attachments over their personal properties lifted in terms of Ext.P5 judgment, then necessary steps for such purpose shall be completed within the afore time frame.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN Stu JUDGE WP(C).No.434 OF 2021(D) 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KERALA DATED 03.01.1994 IN RESPECT OF THE SAID COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE COMPANY DATED 07.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE DATED 15.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE 09.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.14024/2020 AND WPC NO.20295/2020. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE RESPONDENTS DATED 30.11.2020.