Dismissed

Auric Brown Crumb Rubbers (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Aug 2008WP(C)/1824/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged refund of revenue recovery charges paid during a one-time settlement. Court held charges were voluntarily accepted in meeting minutes and settlement offer. Writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay revenue recovery charges; no refund granted.

What the court decided

Auric Brown Crumb Rubbers (P) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 1824 of 2008(P)

¶6

-------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-------------------

¶9

AURIC BROWN CRUMB RUBBERS(P) LTD., MOSQUE ROAD, MUTTOM, ALUVA. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. M.T.PAUL, MUTTATHOTTIL HOUSE, UNIVERSITY ROAD, KOCHI - 682022.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

-----------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO ITS GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, ALUVA-683101.

¶16

4. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KESTON ROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR FOR R1 TO R3, ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) & ADV. SRI. SAJI VARGHESE, SC, KSIDC FOR R4.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C). NO.1824/2008-P:

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22/01/2007 OF THE R.4. ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXT.P.2: A LETTER OF THE R.4. DTD. 28/03/2007 ADDRESSED TO THE R.3. DTD. 28/03/2007 SHOWING REMITTANCE OF RS.1,05,020/- AS RR CHARGES @ 7.5% OF 14,00,250/- OUT OF THE PAYMENT OF RS.15,05,270/- MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.4.

¶24

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER OF R.4. DTD. 28/03/2007 TO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING PAYMENT OF RS.3,15,057/- TOWARDS REVENUE RECOVERY CHARGES, BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.3. DTD. 29/03/2007.

¶26

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19/11/2007 OF THE PETITIONER SENT TO THE R.3. WITH COPY TO R.2.

¶27

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 07/12/2007 OF THE R.2.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

prv.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

W.P.(C) 1824 of 2008

Dated: AUGUST 21, 2008

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Petitioner was a defaulter to the 4^th respondent. Recovery proceedings were initiated and finally he was offered a one time settlement scheme by Ext.P1 which included a condition that the petitioner should pay the revenue recovery charges. It is stated by the petitioner that this was accepted by him and finally he paid a total sum of Rs.4,20,077/- towards the revenue recovery charges. By making payment of the dues along with the revenue recovery charges, their liability towards the 4^th respondent was settled and the documents of title were also released.

¶37

Thereafter this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that since no amount was recovered by employing the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act, and as the liability was settled directly availing of the one time settlement scheme of the 3^rd respondent, he ought

¶38

¶39

WP(C) 1824 of 2008

¶40

not have been made liable to revenue recovery charges. It is on this basis the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to refund the revenue recovery charges realised from him along with interest at the rate of 12%. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Bhaskara v. Sub Registrar - reported in 2005 (3) KLT 150 in support of its proposition.

¶41

The 3^rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is stated that following the default that was committed by the petitioner, requisition under the Revenue Recovery Act was forwarded by the 4^th respondent to the District Collector, Ernakulam. It is stated that accordingly the District Collector issued revenue recovery certificate under sec.69(3) of the Revenue Recovery Act and on that basis demand notice was issued to the petitioner under secs.7 and 34 of the Act. It is stated that payment was not made and as a result of which, the buildings and the machineries belonging to the petitioner were attached.

¶42

¶43

WP(C) 1824 of 2008

¶44

It is stated that while further action under the Revenue Recovery Act was being taken, the 4^th respondent informed that the petitioner had remitted a part of the dues and that the 4^th respondent forwarded a cheque for Rs.1,05,020/- being the revenue recovery charges for the part payment made by the petitioner. It is stated that thereafter the 4^th respondent informed that the party had remitted a total sum of Rs.56.01 lakhs in settlement of the liability and the 4^th respondent forwarded another cheque for Rs.3,15,057/- towards the balance collection charges. It is stated by the 3^rd respondent that it was only on account of the initiation of the revenue recovery proceedings that amount was remitted by the petitioner and therefore they are entitled to realise collection charges. It is their further case that the payment of collection charges was a voluntary payment. On these grounds, it is contended that the realisation of collection charges cannot be interfered by this Court.

¶45

¶46

WP(C) 1824 of 2008

¶47

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends before me that it was under compelling circumstances the payment was made, I am not in a position to accept that plea. This is for the reason that the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent has made available before me the minutes of the meeting held by the 4^th respondent with the petitioner on 15.11.2006 which led to the issuance of Ext.P1 offer for one time settlement of the liability. The minutes of the meeting referred to above shows that the Managing Director of the 4^th respondent had made it known to the petitioner that the petitioner will have to pay the revenue recovery charges. Accepting the aforesaid suggestion made by the Managing Director of the 4^th respondent, it is seen that the petitioner had made an offer to the 4^th respondent by their letter dated 1.12.2006 wherein it is stated that “as stated in the minutes, the company shall bear the revenue recovery charges and legal expenses incurred by the Corporation on that account”. It

¶48

¶49

WP(C) 1824 of 2008

¶50

is seen that it was on this basis, the one time settlement of the liability was concluded wherein the petitioner had voluntarily undertaken to make the payment.

¶51

Thus, after having voluntarily accepted the liability and making payment and getting the benefit of the scheme, in my view, it is not open to the petitioner now to turn around and contend that realisation of revenue recovery charges from them was under compelling circumstances and hence erroneous. For this reason I am not inclined to interfere with the matter.

¶52

Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so.

¶53

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶54

mt/-

Auric Brown Crumb Rubbers (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Auric Brown Crumb Rubbers (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarathchandran Vs State of Kerala

Kuruvilla Ulahannan Vs the Excise Commissioner

Shamsudeen Vs the Manager, Kerala Financial Enterprise

P.C.Bose Vs Roy K.Thomas

V.Reghunathan Vs the Regional Transport Authority,Kollam

Geevarghese George Vs the Secretary,Thazakara Grama Panchayath