Disposed

A.Sivaramakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Jul 2009WP(C)/431/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, who defaulted on a loan from the Kerala Financial Corporation, sought a one-time settlement. The dispute concerned the demand for 1% recovery charges on remitted amounts under Rule 5(3) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and Rules, 1968 by revenue officials.

What did the court decide?

Remittance of collection charges at the rate prescribed under the amended Rule 5(3) is declared sufficient.

A.Sivaramakrishnan Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 431 of 2009(B) ------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

A.SIVARAMAKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR, SAJ MODERN RICE MILL, PERINCHIRA HOUSE, MUTHALAMADA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, CENTURY COMPLEX, MATHAKOVIL STREET, SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶14

ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE, SC, KFC FOR R2 GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

V.GIRI, J

¶17

W.P.(C).431/2009

¶18

Dated this the 27^th day of July, 2009

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Petitioner availed a loan of Rs.12,20,000/- from the Kerala Financial Corporation. When there was default in the repayment of the same, revenue recovery steps were taken at the instance of the Corporation. Petitioner moved for a settlement of dues under the One Time Settlement Scheme and amounts as demanded by the Corporation have been remitted though there was delay in the same. The dispute now relates to the demands for recovery charges, at the instance of the revenue officials.

¶21

The recovery charges are demanded in terms of Rule 5 (3) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and Rules, 1968 which reads as follows:-

¶22

“Institutions except Government departments accepting defaulted payments directly from the defaulter after initiating RR proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (Act 15 of 1968) and filing the certificate by the District Collector under

¶23

W.P.(C).431/09

¶24

¶25

Sub section (3) of Section 69 of the said Act shall be liable to pay 1% of the amount so collected towards service charge for the initiation of Revenue Recovery proceedings against the defaulter and to initiate the fact of such acceptance to the District Collector concerned at once.”'

¶26

Petitioner is willing to remit the collection charges at the rate of 1% of the amount collected, in terms of Rule 5(3). Learned Government Pleader submits that the actual recovery was effected prior to the amendment of Rule 5(3), that is prior to 6.5.2009. I am of the view that since by the amendment, there is a benevolent change brought about, remittance of collection charges at the rate now prescribed under Rule 5(3) shall be treated as sufficient. It is accordingly declared.

¶27

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶28

V.GIRI, Judge

¶29

mrcs

A.Sivaramakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Sivaramakrishnan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Haj Umrah Group Association Vs Anil Trigunayat

Mejo Nirappel Vs State of Kerala and Others

Ibrahim Khaleel Vs the District Collector,Kasargod

J.Hareendran Nair Vs Sunitha Sharma

Smt.Leeladevi Vs the Village Officer, Kalanjoor

Eorge Kuruvilla Vs the Executive Engineer