Disposed

Mukundan P.P. v. District Collector

Kerala HC15 Mar 2010WP(C)/1986/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging bank recovery proceedings and seeking total waiver of a time-barred agricultural loan, the Court held that the petitioner is eligible only for a 25% rebate under the Debt Relief Scheme due to holding over 5 acres of land. The Court directed repayment of the remaining 75% liability in four monthly installments pending confirmation of the Scheme's extension, with coerc

What did the court decide?

Coercive proceedings stayed. Petitioner directed to pay 75% of outstanding liability in four equal monthly installments, pending confirmation of Scheme extension.

Mukundan P.P. Vs District Collector — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 1986 of 2010(W)

PETITIONER:

MUKUNDAN.P.P,AGED 56 YEARS,S/O.KANNAN, PONODANTEPARAMBATH HOUSE,NARIPATTA VILLAGE,

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT ,CIVIL STATION,KOZHIKODE.

¶14

THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(R.R),TALUK OFFICE, VADAKARA,VADAKARA.P.O,VADKARA,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶15

STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER,SBT CHEEKKUNNUMMEL BRANCH, CHEEKKUNNU.P.O,VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 507.

¶16

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN FOR R1 & R2

¶17

ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R3

¶18

SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH FOR R3 SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR FOR R3

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶21

W.P(C) No.1986 of 2010-W

¶22

Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2010.

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The petitioner had availed a short term agricultural loan of Rs.1 lakh from the third respondent in January 2000. But because of some adverse circumstances, including the crop failure and sudden down fall in price of crops, the petitioner could not effect the repayment in time. In the said circumstances, the Bank proceeded with the revenue recovery proceedings for realisation of the amount stated as due, which hence is under challenge in this Writ Petition, mainly contending that the debt is time-barred and that the petitioner is entitled for total waiver of the agricultural loan availed between 1.4.1997 and 31.12.2007, in view of the 'Scheme' notified in this regard.

¶25

The learned standing counsel appearing for the Bank submits with reference to the statement filed, that the contention that the debt has become time barred is wrong and misconceived, for the obvious reason that it is 'mortgage debt' and that the steps taken are well within time. With regard to the second contention,

¶26

¶27

W.P(C) No.1986 of 2010-W

¶28

claiming the benefit of waiver, it is pointed out that the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme-2008 is very much specific and the petitioner being a person holding more than 5 acres of land, he is not entitled to get the benefit of waiver under the Scheme, but is eligible only for a 'rebate' of 25%, he being a person coming within the purview of the term “other farmer”. It is also stated that the last date for availing the benefit was up to 31.12.2009 and that the petitioner had to deposit the remaining 75% of the outstanding loan amount on or before the said date. It is also stated that the total outstanding liability now comes to more than Rs.2.44 lakhs.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the benefit of the Debt Relief Scheme has been extended till 30.6.2009 and that the petitioner is ready and willing to satisfy the entire extent of 75% of the liability after availing 25% rebate on or before the said date. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that instructions have not been obtained with regard to the extension of the Scheme. However, taking note of the rival submissions and the outstanding liability, the petitioner is directed to satisfy 75% of the outstanding liability by way of 'four' equal equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 31^st

¶30

W.P(C) No.1986 of 2010-W 3

¶31

of this month; to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 30^th of the succeeding months. Eligibility of the petitioner to avail the benefit of rebate to the extent of 25%, as well as the liability to satisfy the balance amount, if any, will be subject to the confirmation of the position by the Bank. If the Scheme is extended as contended above, the petitioner shall also be given the benefit thereunder and the satisfaction shall be recorded on payment of the requisite amount on or before 30.6.2010. If it is not extended for any further period the outstanding liability shall also be satisfied by the petitioner within one month thereafter ie. on or before 30.7.2010. Subject to the above, all further coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance.

¶32

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶35

//True Copy//

¶36

P.A to Judge

¶37

Mukundan P.P. v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukundan P.P. v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Vs District Collector, Thrissur and Others

The Federal Bank Limited Vs Annakutty

Suja Mohan and Others Vs State Bank of Travancore and Another

Satheesh Kumar Vs Indhukaladharan

C.M.Noordeen and Others Vs Union Bank of India & Another

Madhu Vs M/S Punjab National Bank & Another