Petitioner has approached this Court, with the following prayers : (i) to call for the records relating to P3 and P3(a) Demand Notices of the 3rd respondent and to quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or order;
(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate Writ direction or order, directing the 1st respondent to consider P2 representation and to re-schedule the loan repayment by granting the petitioner at least 6 months time to start repayment of the defaulted amount;
(iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate Writ direction or order, for bearing the 3rd respondent from proceeding against the movable or immovable assets of the partnership firm Hill View Valley Nature Resorts pursuant to P3 and P3(a) Demand Notices.
(iv) to issue such other writ, direction or order as this Honourable Court deems just and proper; and
(v) to award cost.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, he is the Managing Partner of the firm run under the name and style as 'Hill View Valley Nature Resorts'. Earlier, the unit was being operated by one Mr.Joseph Thomas and his wife Leelamma Joseph. It was subsequently, that the petitioner was inducted as a partner, as borne by Ext.P1. The other partners, pursuant to the induction of the petitioner as Managing Partner, are not much interested in running the unit. Because of earnest efforts taken by the petitioner, the unit has been revived and is generating funds and is discharging liability under various heads.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the loan already disbursed to the establishment requires to be re- scheduled, for which the petitioner has already approached the first respondent by filing Ext.P2 representation. The prayer is only to cause the same to be considered and disposed of.
4. Heard, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents as well, who submits with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit filed that, a total sum of `5,08,21,707/- is due under two different loans. Inability was expressed from the part of the petitioner to satisfy the due amount, in spite of several discussions as stated in paragraph No.9 of the said counter affidavit.
5. When the matter came up before this Court on 28.10.2014, the following interim order was passed :
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to earnest efforts taken, the unit is being revived and will be ready for operation within no time. It is stated that the petitioner is ready to offer additional security, and to prove the bonafides, he is also ready to effect a lump sum payment so as to consider the request of the petitioner to have the loan rescheduled.
The learned standing counsel for the respondents seeks time to get instructions.
Post next week.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that, the attempt being made by the petitioner is to make the unit viable and to discharge the entire liability to the respondents and it is in the said context, that the re- scheduling of the loan is sought for. It is stated that the petitioner is ready to deposit a sum of `50 Lakhs by the end of January and that he is also ready to furnish additional security to the satisfaction of the respondents for causing Ext.P2 to be considered.
7. After hearing both the sides, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of the case. The first respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and communicate the outcome. This shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within 'six weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
8. It will be open for the petitioner to meet the requirements to the extent, if any accommodation is given, with regard to the grievance sought to be redressed.
9. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for further steps.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
AMV/07/11/ Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE