Kerala High Court
M/S. Kims Bellerose Institue Of Medical ... vs State Of Kerala on 4 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 27241 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
M/S. KIMS BELLEROSE INSTITUE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES PVT LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND DIRECTOR,
DR.M.I.SAHADULLA, AGED 76 YEARS,
S/O. ILLIAS MOHAMMED,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KIMS BUILDING,
P.O. BOX NO. 1, ANAYARA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695029.
BY ADVS.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
M.SREEKUMAR
A.ABDUL KHARIM
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOTTAYAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
K.K.ROAD, COLLECTORATE BUILDING,
COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM-686002.
3 TAHSILDAR
KOTTAYAM TALUK, MINI CIVIL STATION,
PUTHANANGADI, KOTTAYAM NORTH P.O.,
KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
AYMANAM VILLAGE, AYMANAM P.O.,
KOTTAYAM-686015.
WP(C) No.27241 of 2022 2
ADDL.R5 JUBEY M. DEVASIA
PADINJAREKALAYIL HOUSE, KUDAMALOOR P.O.,
KOTTAYAM PIN - 686017
ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 04.11.2022 IN IA
1/2022 IN WPC NO. 27241/2022.
BY ADVS.
VIJAI MATHEWS
JOSEPH THEKKEKURUVANAL(K/000191/1982)
SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER SRI.JAFAR KHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
O1.03.2024, THE COURT ON 04.06.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.27241 of 2022 3
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
W.P (C) Nos.27241 of 2022
.................................................................
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P11 and direct the
3rd respondent to change the name of the petitioner company in the revenue
records to match Ext.P2 certificate.
2. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956
and the erstwhile name of the Company was Bellerose Institute of Medical
Sciences Pvt. Ltd. and was represented by the Managing Director, Juby M.
Devasia @ Juby Devasia. The aforesaid Juby M. Devasia owned a certain
extent of land obtained as per Sale Deed No.794/2003 of S.R.O. Kottayam
and he conveyed the said property to M/s.Bellerose Institute of Medical
Sciences Pvt. Ltd. as per Ext.P1 sale deed. The said company was
represented by its Managing Director, Juby M. Devasia and after execution
of Ext.P1 sale deed, the company effected mutation and was paying tax.
55% share of the said company was purchased by KIMS Healthcare
Management Ltd. on the basis of an MOU dated 31.12.2012, share
purchase agreement and share subscription agreement dated 20.04.2013.
As per the terms of the agreement six directors were appointed by KIMS
Healthcare Management Ltd. (KHML) apart from the then two existing
directors. Thereafter, the Board of Directors appointed Dr. M.I Sahadulla as
Chairman of the Company and Mr. Juby M. Devasia ceased to be the
Managing Director and he is one of the directors of the company along with
other directors. Later on, the name of the company Bellerose Institute of
Medical Science Pvt. Ltd. was changed to KIMS Bellerose Institute of
Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd. as per Ext.P2 certificate of incorporation. As per
Ext.P3 resolution, Dr. M.I Sahadulla, Chairman and Director, Dr. G.
Vijayaraghavan, Mr. E.M Najeeb and Dr. Suhara, Directors of the Company
were accorded sanction to represent the company in various documents and
proceedings. As evident from Ext.P4 land tax receipt, in spite of these
proceedings, in the Thandaper account the name of the pattadar is still
shown as Bellerose Institute of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd. represented by its
Managing Director, Juby M. Devasia. In the said circumstance, the
chairman Dr. M.I Sahadulla submitted Exts.P5 and P6 representations
before respondents 3 and 4 respectively requesting to change the name of
pattadar of the property as KIMS Bellerose Institute of Medical Sciences Pvt.
Ltd. Petitioner submitted that as no action was taken on the basis of Exts.P5
and P6, the present writ petition was filed in which Ext.P10 interim order was
passed directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass order on Ext.P5.
Pursuant to the said direction the application was considered and rejected as
per Ext.P11. The reason stated in Ext.P11 order for rejecting the request of
the petitioner is that the erstwhile owner of the property objected to the same
stating that S.L.P. No.569 of 2019 is pending before the Apex Court and that
FIR No. 411 of 2019 of Crime Branch Kottayam and ECIR registered by the
Enforcement Directorate are pending. It is also stated that the contract
between the erstwhile owner and the petitioner company was not duly
stamped whereby violating Sections 39 and 42 of the Companies Act, 2013.
3. The petitioner would submit that M/s.Bellerose Institute of Medical
Sciences Pvt. Ltd. was run by the erstwhile owner, Juby M. Devasia and his
wife as directors. When the company was in deep financial trouble and on
the verge of taking over of its assets by the creditor bankers they
approached M/s. KIMS Healthcare Management Ltd. for financial assistance
and accordingly a memorandum of understanding dated 31.12.2012, share
purchase agreement dated 20.04.2013 and share subscription and
shareholders agreement dated 20.04.2013 were executed between the
parties, which are produced as Exts.P12 to P14. The total assets of the
company were mutually valued at Rs.15 crores. As per the terms of
Exts.P12 to P14 agreements, 55% of the share was purchased by M/s.
KIMS Healthcare Management by paying an amount of Rs.8,25,00,000/-.
Clause 2 of Ext.P12 memorandum of understanding clearly says that "2.58
acres of land in survey no.494/13 situated at Aymanam Village in Kottayam
District, building constructed in this land (45000 sq.ft fully constructed and
8000 sq.ft. partly constructed) along with all plant, machinery, equipment,
furniture and fixtures, existing current assets, etc. belonging in the individual
name of promoters to be transferred to Bellerose before transfer of sale
consideration". In accordance with the said clause Ext.P1 sale deed was
executed by the erstwhile owner in the name of the petitioner company.
Later erstwhile owner Mr. Jubey M.Devasia who is one of the directors of the
petitioner company approached National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai
and filed C.P.No.14 of 2018 alleging oppression and mismanagement on the
part of the newly inducted directors. The allegations raised in the said
company petition are to the effect that the share value of Mr. Jubey
M.Devasia and his wife was reduced drastically and illegally and that the
other Directors committed misappropriation. The National Company Law
Tribunal, Chennai after extensive enquiry, as per Ext.P15 order found that
the allegations were wrong, dismissed the company petition and referred the
parties for arbitration in view of the arbitration clause contained in Exts.P13
and P14 agreements. Ext.P15 order was passed in I.A.No.193 of 2018 filed
by the petitioner challenging the maintainability of the company petition. The
appeal filed by Mr. Jubey M.Devasia was also dismissed by the National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal as per Ext.P16 order dated 11.12.2018.
Mr. Jubey M. Devasia approached the Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal
No.869 of 2019. Though the Apex Court was pleased to order status quo by
order dated 28.01.2019 the same was subsequently modified in
I.A.No.34060 of 2019 filed by the petitioner to the effect that the status quo
order will be applicable only to the arbitration proceedings as is evident from
Exts.P17 and P18 respectively. The petitioner would further submit that after
dismissal of the Company Petition by the Company Law Tribunal, Mr. Jubey
M. Devasia along with his wife filed a criminal complaint against the other
directors of the company projecting the very same allegations raised in the
company petition. The Crime Branch Police registered Crime No.411 of 2019
for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and
120B of the Indian Penal Code. After a detailed investigation, the crime was
referred as a mistake of fact as evident from Ext.P19. Thereafter Mr.Jubey
M.Devasia and his wife filed complaint before the Enforcement Directorate
alleging the commission of offences under the provisions of the Prevention
of Money Laundering Act, 2002 projecting the very same allegations raised
in the earlier litigations against the petitioner and its directors. Though the
Enforcement Directorate registered ECIR/KCZO/28/2020 against the
petitioner and three others, this Court in W.P.(Crl) No.16 of 2022 stayed the
proceedings pursuant to show cause notice and also stayed coercive action
as per Exts.P20 and P21 orders.
4. On the basis of the same it is contended that the above said
proceedings have nothing to do with the request made in Ext.P5 for change
of name of the petitioner company in the revenue records. Even the
allegation that the contract between the erstwhile owner and petitioner
company is not duly stamped is only a curable defect and to Ext.P22 notice
issued in this regard petitioner has submitted Ext.P23 explanation.
Petitioner submits that these proceedings if any will not stand in the way of
effecting change of name of the Company in the revenue records, which is
only for fiscal purposes and by itself will not confer any right on the parties.
5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 5 th respondent
wherein it is contended that he along with his wife are the founder promoters
of M/s.Bellerose Institute of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Though Ext.P1 deed
was executed, no consideration was passed upon him and therefore the
deed has not come into effect and he still remained as pattadar in the land
tax receipt and he is in possession of the property in Ext.P1 deed as evident
from Ext.R5(a). It is true that the proposal of taking 55% of equity shares
submitted by M/s.KIMS group was accepted and an investment agreement,
MOU and a share purchase agreement were entered into and the land,
building and other assets referred to in Ext.P1 deed were excluded from the
said agreements as mutually agreed. The share subscription agreement
referred to in the writ petition is a fabricated document and a complaint was
preferred before the police. The further statement that the Board of Directors
of the company appointed Dr. M.I Sahadulla as Chairman of the company
and Mr. Juby M. Devasia ceased to be the Managing Director is not correct
and Dr. M.I Sahadulla has forged documents including minutes of the
meeting of the Board of Directors. It is further submitted that as averred in
the writ petition there is no contract of sale relating to the property or assets
including land and building between M/s.Bellerose Institute of Medical
Sciences Pvt. Ltd. and KIMS Healthcare Management Ltd. and therefore
fresh certificate of incorporation produced as Ext.P2 has no relevance with
respect to the right of land, building and other assets referred to in Ext.P1
deed and therefore, Exts.P2 and P3 will not entitle the petitioner to make
changes in the revenue records of the property covered by Ext.P1 deed.
Ext.P11 order is a well-considered decision and no interference is called for.
Alleging oppression, mismanagement and fraudulent activities of the major
shareholders, he has approached the National Company Law Tribunal,
Chennai and by Ext.P15 order, referred the matter for arbitration. Though the
same was challenged in appeal, the same was also rejected as per Ext.P16.
It was challenged before the Apex Court filing Civil Appeal No.869 of 2019
and Ext.P17 order of status quo was issued which was later clarified as per
Ext.P18 order to mean that status quo will be in respect of arbitration case
alone. Based on a complaint preferred by the 5 th respondent regarding
misappropriation of funds, a crime was registered as Crime No. 411 of 2019
by the Crime Branch but later without properly investigating the matter, the
police submitted Ext.P19 final report referring the crime as a mistake of fact
and the 5th respondent has taken steps to challenge Ext.P19 final report. The
Enforcement Directorate has also registered an ECIR/KCZO/28/2020 with
regard to Crime No.411 of 2019 and proceedings were initiated as per the
provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
6. A reply affidavit has been filed wherein it is stated that Ext.R5(a)
possession certificate has been obtained by influencing the authorities and
based on Ext.P4 tax receipt, Ext.P24 possession certificate was issued in
favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner that pursuant to the interference of mediators,
the inter se disputes between the additional 5th respondent and other
directors have been amicably settled and in full and final settlement of the
claims of the additional 5th respondent and his wife, the entire shares held
by them was purchased by M/s. KIMS Healthcare Management Ltd. on
payment of Rs.20 Crores and thereafter the additional 5th respondent and his
wife have submitted resignation letters from the post of Directors and agreed
to settle/withdraw all the litigations and to substantiate the same Ext.P25
share purchase agreement was produced before this Court. Thereafter,
Ext.P26 no objection certificate was issued by the 5 th respondent which was
produced before respondents 2 to 4 on 08.08.2023. A perusal of Ext.P26
would show that the 5th respondent has no objection in effecting the mutation
of the property from the erstwhile name M/s.Bellerose Institute of Medical
Sciences Pvt. Ltd. to M/s.KIMS Bellerose Institute of Medical Sciences Pvt.
Ltd. and requested that the earlier order rejecting the application may be
reviewed and the application for effecting mutation may be allowed. Learned
Senior Counsel would further submit that Ext.P27 notarized affidavit was
also sworn to by the additional 5 th respondent wherein he has specifically
stated that he has no objection in effecting mutation of the property in the
revenue records and in the light of having resolved all disputes and their
minority shares having transferred to M/s.KIMS Healthcare Management
Ltd., and he is withdrawing his counter affidavit dated 04.04.2023 and he has
no objection whatsoever in allowing the writ petition. Learned Senior counsel
would further submit that the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement
Directorate was challenged before this Court and this Court as per Ext.P28
judgment in W.P.(Crl) No.16 of 2022 has quashed all the proceedings
initiated by the Enforcement Directorate. It is further submitted by the
learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Apex Court has
dismissed the Civil Appeal No.869 of 2019 preferred by the 5 th respondent
as per order dated 08.02.2024 and the said order has been produced along
with a memo filed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is
also submitted that the stand taken in Ext.P11 is contrary to the law declared
by this court in Park Residency v. State of Kerala, 2013 (1) KLT 855 and
Exts.P8 and P9 judgments.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent wherein it is
stated that resisting the request of the petitioner, 5 th respondent submitted an
application and requested to refrain from any action on the application of the
petitioner, after citing S.L.P.No.869 of 2019 and FIR No.411 of 2019 of
Crime Branch, ECIR registered by the Enforcement Directorate. Moreover,
5th respondent pointed out the Inspection Note dated 06.07.2022 of the
Registrar of Companies and contended that the agreement between the
petitioner and 5th respondent was not duly stamped. Noting the dispute over
the property in question, Tahsildar by Ext.P11 rejected the request of the
petitioner to change the name of the thandaper holder and therefore, it is
respectfully submitted that there is no substance in the contention of the
petitioner.
8. Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent and also the learned Senior
Government Pleader. The request made by the petitioner as per Exts.P5
and P6 for change of name of pattadar of the property as KIMS Bellerose
Institute of Medical Sceinces Pvt. Ltd. was directed to be considered as per
Ext.P10 interim order passed by this Court, taking into consideration
judgment of this Court in Park Residency's case supra as well as d Exts.P8
and P9 judgments. Pursuant to the same, the request was considered and
rejected as per Ext.P11 order which is impugned in this writ petition. A
perusal of Ext.P11 order would reveal that the application was rejected due
to the strong objection raised by the 5th respondent and for the pendency of
S.L.P. No.569 of 2019 before the Apex Court, FIR No. 411 of 2019 of Crime
Branch, Kottayam and ECIR registered by the Enforcement Directorate. In
Ext.P11 though the judgment in Park Residency's case supra as well as
Exts.P8 and P9 judgments was considered, the 3rd respondent took a stand
that as in the present case there is no objection in those cases as raised by
the 5th respondent in the present case. Therefore, the only reason for
rejecting the request as per Ext.P11 is the pendency of the cases referred
above and also due to the strong objection raised by the 5 th respondent in
allowing the request made by the petitioner.
9. As regard the S.L.P. No. 569 of 2019 before the Apex Court, the
learned Senior Counsel would sbumti that the said SLP has been dismissed
as per order dated 08.02.2024 and a copy of the same has been produced
along with a memo filed by the counsel for the petitioner dated 17.02.2024.
As regard the pendency of FIR No. 411 of 2019 of Crime Branch Kottayam,
it is submitted that after conducting a proper investigation Ext.P9 final report
was filed before the jurisdictional court referring the crime as a mistake of
fact. As regard ECIR registered by the Enforcement Directorate, it is
contended that the proceedings were challenged before this court in W.P
(Crl) No.16 of 2022 and this Court as per Ext.P28 judgment has quashed all
the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate. As regards the
objection raised by the 5th respondent against the request made by the
petitioners as per Exts.P5 and P6 for change of name of the pattadar of the
property, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that pursuant to the interference of mediators, the inter se disputes
between the additional 5th respondent and other directors have been
amicably settled and in full and final settlement of the claims of the additional
5th respondent and his wife, the entire shares held by them was purchased
by M/s. KIMS Healthcare Management Ltd. on payment of Rs.20 Crores and
thereafter the additional 5th respondent and his wife have submitted
resignation letters from the post of Directors and agreed to settle/withdraw all
the litigations and to substantiate the same, Ext.P25 share purchase
agreement was produced before this Court. Thereafter, Ext.P26 no objection
certificate was issued by the 5th respondent which was produced before
respondents 2 to 4 on 08.08.2023. A perusal of Ext.P26 would show that the
5th respondent has no objection in effecting the mutation of the property from
the erstwhile name M/s.Bellerose Institute of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd. to
M/s.KIMS Bellerose Institute of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd. and that the
earlier order rejecting the application may be reviewed and the application
for effecting mutation may be allowed. Learned Senior Counsel would further
submit that Ext.P27 notarized affidavit was also sworn to by the additional 5 th
respondent wherein he has specifically stated that he has no objection in
effecting mutation of the property in the revenue records and in the light of
having resolved all disputes and their minority shares having transferred to
M/s.KIMS Healthcare Management Ltd., he is withdrawing his counter
affidavit dated 04.04.2023 and he has no objection whatsoever in allowing
the writ petition. In view of the above subsequent developments, the reason
stated in Ext.P11 to reject the request of the petitioner is untenable.
In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the matter requires
reconsideration at the hands of 3rd respondent/Thasildar (LR), Kottayam.
Therefore, the above writ petition is disposed as follows:
1. Ext.P11 order is set aside.
2. The 3rd respondent/Thasildar (LR), Kottayam shall reconsider Exts.P5
and P6 requests submitted by the petitioner in accordance with the
law taking into consideration the decision in the Park Residency's
case cited supra and Exts.P8 and P9 judgments and pass orders
thereon within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a
copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to
the petitioner.
3. The petitioner will be free to submit notes of arguments enclosing
copies of the judgments referred to above and also the documents in
support of its claim, including the order passed by the Apex Court in
Civil Appeal No. 869 of 2019, Ext.P8 judgment, Exts.P25, P26, P27
and P28 before the 3rd respondent/Thasildar (LR), Kottayam.
4. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of the judgment and the
argument note before the 3rd respondent/Thasildar (LR), Kottayam.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
cks
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27241/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1245/2013 OF SUB
REGISTRY OFFICE, KOTTAYAM DATED 12..04..2013.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF FRESH CERTIFICATE OF
INCORPORATION DATED 23..08..2013.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION PASSED BY BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY IN 51ST MEETING HELD
ON 19.6.2019.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT NO.KL05030601847/2021
DATED 18.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 02.11.2021
FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
WITHOUT ANNEXURES.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 02.11.2021
FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
WITHOUT ANNEXURES.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO. 11190/21 DATED
03.11.2021 EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXT.P5.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
WPC.NO.19910/2011 DATED 13.10.2014.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
WPC.NO.32497/2014 DATED 12.12.2014.
EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THIS COURT IN WP(C)
NO.27241/2022 DATED 24.08.2022
EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G3-7983/22 DATED
6.10.2022 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED
31.12.2012
EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT (SPA)
EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES ON 20.04.2013
EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF SHARE SUBSCRPTION & SHAREHOLDERS
AGREEMENT (SSSA) EXECUTED ON 20.4.2013
EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA NO.193/2018 IN CP
NO.14/2018 OF THE NCLT CHENNAI DATED 5.9.2018
EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF NATIONAL COMPANY LAW
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (NCLAT) IN
COMPANY APPEAL NO.377/2018 DATED 11.12.2018
EXT.P17 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.1.2019 IN CIVIL
APPEAL NO.869/2019 OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA
EXT.P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.3.2019 IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO.869/2019OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA
EXT.P19 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT (REFER REPORT)
DATED 29.11.2021 IN CRIME NO.411/2019 OF CRIME
BRANCH POLICE STATION
EXT.P20 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT IN
WP(CRL)NO.16 OF 2022 DATED 6.1.2022
EXT.P21 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER THIS COURT IN IA
NO.1/2022 IN WP(CRL) NO.16 OF 2022 DATED
30.06.2022
EXT.P22 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.ROC(K)/09Wsp/09-
26107/1422/2022 DATED 6.7.2022 ISSUED BY THE
REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES TO THE PETITIONER
EXT.P23 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF EXPLANATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES DATED 24.08.2022
Ext.P24 true copy of the possession certificate dated
27..12..2022 issued by the Village Officer,
Aymanam Village Office.
Exhibit P25 TRUE COPY OF THE SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
DATED 07..08..2023 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE
PARTIES.
Exhibit P26 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION LETTER DATED
07..08..2023 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL 5TH
RESPONDENT TO RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4
Exhibit P27 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE
ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT ON 07..08..2023
BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC
Exhibit P28 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN WP(CRL)NO.16/2022 DATED 06..12..2023
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R5 (a) True copy of the Possession certificate issued
from the Village Office , dated 03-01-2023
Exhibit-R5 (b) True copy of the Forged minutes of the company
meeting, dated 20-4-2013
Exhibit R5 (c ) True copy of the Forged minutes of the company
meeting, dated 20-4-2013
Exhibit R5 (d) True copy of the notice to show cause issued
to the petitioner under section 8 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, dated
10-12-2021
Exhibit- R5 (e) True copy of the Statement of Facts filed by
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime
Branch , Kottayam, in Crl. MC No. 6289 of
2019, dated 28-07-2020
Exhibit -R 5(f) True copy of the valuation of the property
referred to in Exhibit- P1 Deed, prepared by a
Chartered Engineer and Approved Valuer, Sri.
K.A. Thomas, dated 07-01-2023
Exhibit- R5 (g) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SENT TO THE
COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
(CAG), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN THEIR EMAIL
ADDRESS ALONG WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, DATED
11-08-2021
Exhibit-R5 (h) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE SR.
DAG (ADMN),DATED 10-11-2022
Exhibit-R5(i) TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION AND NON-ATTACHMENT
CERTIFICATE, ISSUED FROM THE AYMANAM VILLAGE
OFFICE, DATED 7-02-2023
Exhibit -R5 (j) TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE, DATED
2-9-2023
Exhibit-R5(k) TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT PREPARED BY
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., DATED 14-3-2014
Exhibit- R5(L) TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON 8-
7-2023 IN WP(C ) NO. 7429 OF 2023, DATED 6-6-
