ABDUL HAKKIM, V. THE UNION OF INDIA,

WP(C)/15226/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Abdul Hakkim, the proprietor of M/s. Shah Traders, who sought the benefits under a government scheme for the revival of Cashew Industries. The petitioner had initially submitted an application (Ext.P4) to the State Level Banker's Committee (SLBC), which was not considered proper as per the scheme's guidelines. The respondents, including the Reserve Bank of India and Federal Bank, argued that the application was incorrectly submitted and that the petitioner was not eligible as they were engaged in trading, not manufacturing. The court, after hearing the submissions, provided the petitioner a final opportunity to submit a properly formatted application to the appropriate authority, ensuring that all objections and materials would be considered in the decision-making process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 734381 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SREEKALA; K N SIVASANKARAN; SUNIL SHANKER; PAULY MURICKEN SC; N B SUNILNATH GP
• Assessee Lawyers: R KISHORE
• Keywords: Cashew Manufacturing Unit; High Power Committee; Revival of Cashew Industries; SLBC; Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1941 WP(C).No.15226 of 2019 PETITIONER: ABDUL HAKKIM, AGED 56 YEARS S/O.MR. MUHAMMED ABDULLA, PROPRIETOR, M/S. SHAH TRADERS, RESIDING @ RAHATHU, T.K.M.C(P.O) KOLLAM-691005. BY ADV. SRI.R.KISHORE (KALLUMTHAZHAM) RESPONDENTS: 1 THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT. 2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT AND INDUSTRIES(COIR AND CASHEW), MAIN BLOCK, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3 THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, RBI, BAKERY JUNCTION, NANDAVANAM, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695033. 4 STATE LEVEL BANKERS COMMITTEE SLBC, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, SLBC, KERALA, SLBC CELL, CANARA BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, CANARA BANK BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 5 AUTHORIZED OFFICER, FEDERAL BANK, RAVI'S ARCADE, NEAR IRON BRIDGE, KOLLAM, KERALA-691013. WP(C).No.15226 of 2019 2 6 BRANCH MANAGER(AVP) FEDERAL BANK, BRANCH OFFICE, RAVI'S ARCADE, NEAR IRON BRIDGE, KOLLAM-691013. BY ADVS. SMT.SREEKALA K.L., CGC SRI.K.N.SIVASANKARAN SRI.SUNIL SHANKER SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN-SC, SRI.N.B.SUNILNATH-GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.15226 of 2019 3 JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to be the proprietor of a Cashew Manufacturing Unit entitled to the benefits declared by the Government of Kerala for the purpose of revival of Cashew Industries. 2. According to the petitioner, they preferred their application for revival, under the said Government Scheme, before the State Level Banker's Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the SLBC' for short) but that no action was thereafter taken by them. He, therefore, pray that the said Authority be directed to consider their application, namely Ext.P4, within a time frame. 3. Shri.Sunil Shankar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6, submits that the petitioner could not have made Ext.P4 before WP(C).No.15226 of 2019 4 the SLBC, since the Scheme is very clear that any such proposal ought to have been made either before the Deputy Secretary, Industries Department, who is the Government Nominee in a High Power Committee constituted under it or before the Bank; and consequently, that Ext.P4 cannot be construed to be a proper application. He then contends very vehemently that, in any event of the matter, the petitioner cannot obtain any benefits under the Scheme because they are not a Manufacturing/Processing Unit but are only engaged in trading of cashew. 4. The learned Government Pleader, Shri.Sunil Nath, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submits that Ext.P4 was not received by the competent state functionaries, but that if the petitioner makes an application before the competent Authority within a short period of time, the same can be considered taking note of the WP(C).No.15226 of 2019 5 objections of the Bank also. He adds that the High Power Committee, in which the representative of the Bank is also a party, can certainly consider all aspects, including the objections of the Bank so that a final decision can be taken within a short period of time. 5. Taking note of the afore submissions, I deem it appropriate to give one last opportunity to the petitioner to invoke the mechanism under the Scheme for revival of Cashew Manufacturing/ Processing Units, declared by the Government of Kerala; and for such purpose I direct them to make their proposal in terms of the Scheme, along with their Balance Sheet, Stock Statement, Income Tax Returns, “Know Your Customer” details and such other relevant materials before the Deputy Secretary, Industries Department of the Government of Kerala, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than 10 days from WP(C).No.15226 of 2019 6 the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; in which event, the said Officer will convene the meeting of the High Power Committee, with a nominee of the respondent- Bank; and the said Committee will thereafter, take a decision thereon as expeditiously as is possible but not later than one month from the date on which such application is received from the petitioner. 6. Needless to say, the nominee of the Bank in the High Power Committee will be at full liberty to place his objections against the application of the petitioner, including any adverse reports/materials and the said Committee will consider the same also while taking a final decision in this matter. 7. It further goes without saying that until such time as the afore exercise is completed, all further proceedings being pursued by the respondents 5 and 6 against WP(C).No.15226 of 2019 7 the petitioner under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, will stand deferred. This writ petition is thus ordered. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/19.6.19 WP(C).No.15226 of 2019 8 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT LETTER DATED 24TH NOVEMBER 2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE NOTICE DATED 9TH MAY 2019. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT OF FEDERAL BANK WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY DATED 14.02.2014. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVIVAL PETITION DATED 14.02.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 08/03/2011 FOR IMPORTER EXPORTER CODE EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IMPORT INVOICE DATED 08.08.2011 REGARDING THE IMPORT OF CASHEW BY THE PETITIONER'S CONCERN EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 6TH JUNE 2014 REGARDING THE IMPORT OF CASHEW KERNELS EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION OF THE KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION DATED 19/03/2013 EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 04/12/2013. EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15/01/2012. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL MC (TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE "