Allowed

Jerry James v. the Branchmanager

Kerala HC4 Jan 2008WP(C)/379/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a sale notice issued for recovery of dues under a financial enterprise agreement, the High Court allowed time for the petitioner to pay the due amount less collection charges via instalments with interest. The court relieved the petitioner of collection charges if payment adheres to the stipulated schedule and stayed the proposed sale for two months.

What did the court decide?

Relief of petitioners collection charges obligation if dues paid via two instalments within one month; sale notice stayed for two months pending compliance.

Jerry James Vs the Branchmanager — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 379 of 2008(T)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

JERRY JAMES, S/O.JAMES, AGED 33, KUTTANPALLY HOUSE, MELAMPARA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JAMES, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 59, KUTTARAPPALLY HOUSE, MELAMPARA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI SRIJESTIN MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., PALAI BRANCH, PALAI P.O.

¶14

2. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), K.S.F.E. LTD., M.D.COMMERCIAL CENTRE, KOTTAYAM.

¶15

3. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., BHADRATHA, P.B.NO. 510, MUSEUM ROAD, TRICHUR REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶16

*ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED:

¶17

R4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶18

**(ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 4/01/2008 IN I.A.NO.248/08)*

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN,SC,K.S.F.E. LTD BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Kss

¶22

V.GIRI,J.

¶23

W.P ( C) No. 379 of 2008

¶24

Dated this the 4^th January, 2008

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Johnson Manayani and Mr. Harihara Puthran, the learned standing counsel for the K.S.F.E and the learned Government Pleader Mr. Mathew George Vadakkel.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he only wants time to effect the payment that is due to the K.S.F.E. Respondents have issued sale notice of the petitioner's property under Exhibit P5. He prays that he may be relieved of the burden to pay the collection charges demanded under Exhibit P5.

¶28

Learned standing counsel for the K.S.F.E. submits that if the petitioner pays the amount, within a period of one month, it may be treated as payment in full and final settlement of the liability. Learned Government Pleader submits that expenses might have been incurred for enforcement of the Revenue Recovery proceedings and therefore, the petitioner cannot be relieved from the burden of paying the collection charges.

¶29

After having heard the counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:

¶30

i) Petitioner shall pay the amount demanded under Exhibit P5 less the amount shown as collection charges (Rs.37,403/-) with interest at 12.5% from the date of Exhibit P5 till payment in two equal instalments.

¶31

W.P ( C) No. 379 of 2008

¶32

¶33

The first instalment to be paid on 31.1.2008 and the second instalment to be paid by 15.2.2008. If payment is effected in the said manner, it shall be treated as payment in full settlement of the liability incurred by the petitioner with the K.S.F.E. Petitioner shall be relieved of the obligation to pay the collection charges if payment is effected in the manner mentioned above. If there is default in paying any one of the instalments, respondents will be entitled to proceed with the revenue recovery proceedings.

¶34

ii) It is made clear that in such circumstances, petitioner will be liable to pay collection charges as mentioned in Exhibit P5 also. The sale as proposed under Exhibit P5 shall stand stayed for a period of two months. Further proceedings by way of sale of the property of the petitioner shall be subject to the petitioner's compliance with the directions as mentioned above.

¶35

(V.GIRI, JUDGE)

¶36

¶37

W.P ( C) No. 379 of 2008

¶38

¶39

K.THANKAPPAN,J

¶40

CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999

¶41

ORDER

¶42

W.P ( C) No. 379 of 2008

¶43

¶44

25^th May, 2007

Jerry James v. the Branchmanager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jerry James v. the Branchmanager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Vijaya Mohanan Nair Vs the Union of India

M.Sarojini Vs the Director, Social Welfare Department

Samuel Mories Vs K.P.S.C.

A.v.Sankaran Namboodiri Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Shaji P. Vs State of Kerala and Others

C.H.Dineshan Vs Chief General Manager, SBI