K.P.Ramachandran Nair vs The Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery)
2021 Latest Caselaw 611 Ker

               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. 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)

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)

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.