ANILKUMAR Vs. ASOKAN VASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 5/10/2021 in W.P.(C) No.14743 of 2021. The appellants are respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, as they appear in the writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be running a Hotel and Bar at Chadayamangalam. It is stated by the petitioner that though he had entered into Ext.P1 agreement with the third respondent for sale of the Hotel and Bar for a consideration of Rs.12.00Crores, and received a sum of Rs.1.25 Crores by way of advance sale consideration from him, the sale did not take place. It is alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that nevertheless, respondents 3 and 4 are attempting to trespass into the Hotel and Bar and respondents 1 and 2 police officers are not affording protection to the petitioner to run the Hotel and Bar. The prayer in the writ petition, in the circumstances, was for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to afford protection to the petitioner to run the Hotel and Bar.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent on his behalf and also on behalf of the third respondent stating, among others, that the petitioner who was facing proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction and Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act at the instance of State Bank of Travancore, Varkala has approached the third respondent with a proposal to sell the Hotel and Bar for the purpose of liquidating the liability to the Bank; that Ext.P1 agreement was executed in the said background; that the petitioner has liquidated his liability to the Bank making use of the advance sale consideration paid by the third respondent and that he has thereafter handed over the title deeds of the property mortgaged to the Bank to the third respondent as part of the arrangement. It is also stated by the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit that the arrangement between the parties was that the petitioner would buy back a property owned by the fourth respondent and others and the sale price of that property would be adjusted against the balance sale consideration payable in terms of Ext.P1 agreement for sale. It is also stated by the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit that there was also an understanding that the Hotel and Bar would be purchased by a partnership consisting of the owners of the property agreed to be sold to the petitioner and the third respondent. It is also stated by the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit that in the light of the said arrangement, an agreement for sale was executed between the fourth respondent and others on one side and the petitioner on the other side in respect of the property agreed to be purchased by the petitioner and a partnership was constituted for the purpose of purchasing the Hotel and Bar. It is also stated by the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit that the partnership thereupon transferred a sum of Rs.30,80,000.00 to the Bank account of the petitioner so as to enable him to remit the licence fee in respect of the Bar for transferring the licence in favour of the partnership, and making use of the said amount, the petitioner remitted the licence fee and applied to the competent authority for transferring the licence of the Bar to the partnership. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that later on 11/4/2021, the petitioner handed over possession of the Hotel and Bar to the partnership, after taking a stock of the foreign liquor kept in the Bar and receiving its price from the partnership so as to enable the partnership to run the Bar and that the Bar was being run thereafter by the partnership till 17/6/2021, on which day it was closed due to the various disputes that arose between the parties in the meanwhile concerning the transactions. It is also stated by the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit that in the meanwhile, the partnership has paid to the petitioner a sum of Rs.1.07 crores also towards the balance sale consideration. It is stated by the fourth respondent that the position as on 17/6/2021 was that no further amount was due to be paid by the third respondent to the petitioner in connection with Ext.P1 agreement. It is stated in the counter affidavit that in the circumstances, the partnership caused to issue a lawyer's notice to the petitioner calling upon him to transfer the ownership of the Hotel and Bar to the partnership and take the sale deed in respect of the property agreed to be purchased by him. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has not responded to to the said lawyer's notice and instead he has approached this Court with the writ petition. According to the fourth respondent, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the police protection sought for.