Kerala High Court
Kerala State Financial ... vs Kerala State Financial ... on 2 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942
RP.No.241 OF 2017(D) IN WP(C). 11032/2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 11032/2016 DATED 19-12-2016 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/2nd RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 11032/2016:
KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.
KATTAKKADA BRANCH, KATTAKKADA,REPRESENTED BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER, PIN-695 572.
BY ADVS.
SRI.LAL GEORGE, SC, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.
K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN BO
SHRI.SALIL NARAYANAN K.A., SC, KSFE LTD.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 IN THE WRIT PETITION:
1 LILLY BAI
D/O.AGNUS, 72-A, KRIPA SADANAM, THEVANCODE,
MYLAKKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 572.
2 SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
REVENUE RECOVERY, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES
LIMITED,AKSHAYA SHOPPING COMPLEX,NEYYATTINKARA-695 121.
3 SATHI KUMAR T
S/O.K.THANKACHAN, 72-A,KRIPA SADANAM,
THEVANCODE,MYLAKKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 572.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUSHANTH.J.
SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.03.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P. No. 241/2017 :2:
in W.P.(C) No. 11032/2016
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2021.
ORDER
This Review Petition is filed by respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C)
No. 11032/2016 seeking to review the judgment dated 19.12.2016,
whereby the writ petitioner was granted 10 instalments to pay off the
pending dues to the Review Petitioner starting from 05.01.2017 and on
the corresponding date of succeeding months.
2. In the process of issuing such a direction, the submission
made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Review Petitioner that
an amount of Rs.9,10,025 is due from the petitioner as on
10.06.2016, was recorded.
3. This Review Petition is filed, in fact, pointing out that the
amount due from the writ petitioner as recorded by this Court on the
basis of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel was a
mistake and actually an amount of Rs.15,84,567/- was due as on
10.06.2016. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the
Review Petitioner, unless and until the judgment is modified by
replacing the figure contained in the judgment, it would seriously
affect the Review Petitioner company, which is a Government owned
company.
in W.P.(C) No. 11032/2016
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner
Sri. Salil Narayanan and the learned counsel representing the learned
counsel for the first respondent Sri. Sushant, and perused the
pleadings and materials on record.
5. In fact, in the judgment, even though the submission made
by the learned Standing Counsel was recorded, this Court did not
venture to adjudicate the issue with respect to the amount that was
pending due from the writ petitioner to the Review Petitioner company.
It was on the basis of a mere submission made across the Bar that the
same was recorded. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the
judgment is modified by incorporating the figure of Rs.15,84,567/- as
on 10.06.2016, since it was an error apparent on the face of record
and against the amount that was actually pending due from the writ
petitioner to the Review Petitioner company, which is a Government
owned company.
6. Accordingly, this Review Petition would stand allowed and
'Rs.9,10,025' mentioned in the judgment is replaced by
'Rs.15,84,567/-'. In all other respects, the directions issued in the
judgment dated 19.12.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 11032 of 2016 would
remain in tact.
However, we make it clear that the replacement of the said
in W.P.(C) No. 11032/2016
amount would not stand in the way of the writ petitioner making any
dispute with respect to the same in any adjudication proceeding.
sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY,
JUDGE.
Rv
