Kerala High Court Rejects Review Of Direction On KINFRA Lease Execution In Favour Of ALKARSF

The Kerala High Court has dismissed a delayed review petition, refusing to reopen its earlier order that allowed the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (KINFRA) to consider execution of a lease in favour of ALKARSF Apparels Pvt. Ltd.

A Division Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran held that no fraud or suppression of material facts was made out. The court also found that the review plea was an afterthought, raised only after an adverse decision was passed against the petitioner in proceedings before KINFRA.

The dispute relates to industrial land originally leased by KINFRA to Poojaa Garments, a proprietary concern of Dr. Usha Umesh. ALKARSF Apparels Pvt. Ltd., represented by its director S.R. Sreejith, later approached the High Court seeking a direction to KINFRA to consider execution of a lease in its favour.

A single judge had directed KINFRA to consider the request while making it clear that any decision would be subject to the outcome of a commercial suit filed by Dr. Usha. In appeal, the Division Bench made a limited modification, directing that Dr. Usha be given an opportunity of being heard before KINFRA took a decision.

Dr. Usha sought review of that order after a delay of 878 days, alleging that the High Court had not been informed of a status quo order passed by the Commercial Court in the pending suit.

Rejecting the plea, the Bench noted that ALKARSF Apparels was never a party to the civil suit. While Sreejith was initially a co-plaintiff along with Dr. Usha, he withdrew from the proceedings on March 31, 2022. The interim status quo order was passed later, on August 26, 2022, when he was no longer a party.

The court also found that the commercial suit did not concern execution of a lease deed by KINFRA. “Apart from the fact that there is no suppression, this Court is of the opinion that the suppression is not in respect of a material fact, which could have influenced the outcome,” the bench said.

The court further noted that Dr. Usha had remained ex parte in the writ petition and had not raised any plea of suppression in her writ appeal. “There is no whisper whatsoever,” the court observed.

Holding that the review was filed only after Dr. Usha participated in the KINFRA proceedings and suffered an adverse order, the High Court dismissed the petition.

For Petitioner: Advocates Rojo Joseph, P.C Thomas, A Sain Paul, P.R Shibu, Navia Sebastain and P.T Judy

For Respondents: Advocates K.A Salil Narayanan and P.U Shailajan