Dismissed

Suresh v. District Collector, Thrissur and Others

Kerala HC12 Mar 2010WP(C)/4608/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging coercive recovery proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act following a motor accident compensation award, the High Court permitted the petitioner to clear the balance amount in five monthly installments and suspended all recovery proceedings subject to strict adherence to the installment schedule.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings kept in abeyance pending clearance of balance amount via five equal monthly installments; default invites lump sum recovery.

Suresh Vs District Collector, Thrissur and Others — Kerala HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 4608 of 2010(A) -------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

SURESH S/O.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KARIKUZHIYKATTU MANA, KONATHUKUNNU,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

THE DISTRICT COLLECOTR, THRISSUR.

¶13

THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR),MUKUNDAPURAM.

¶14

THE VILLAGE OFFICER THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, KONATHUKUNNU DESOM,

¶15

THE MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY IRINJALAKUDA.

¶16

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 4608 of 2010

¶19

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶22

P1 :- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTICATE ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD OF THE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL THRISSUR DT. 08-09-1999

¶23

P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INFORMING ABOUT THE ATTACHMENT OF THE PROPERTIES DT. 19-01-2010

¶24

//TRUE COPY//

¶25

PA TO JUDGE

¶26

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶27

WP (C) NO. 4608 OF 2010

¶28

Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2010

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner is challenging the coercive steps taken by the respondents invoking the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act for, realisation of the amount stated as due from the petitioner.

¶31

The case of the petitioner is that, he was the respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chalakkudy in OPMV No. 1513/03, which was filed by one Mr. Shaju Kodiyan, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Branch of the forth respondent insurance company concerned in the case is at Chalakkudy and not at Irinjalakkuda, which is stated as correct, by the learned counsel appearing for the forth respondent.

¶32

3 . It appears that, the Tribunal awarded amounts as compensation directing the insurance company to satisfy

¶33

WP (C) NO. 4608 OF 2010

¶34

¶35

the award and allowing them to realise the amounts from the owner and the driver of the vehicle. It was accordingly, that the Insurance Company, who is the forth respondent here in satisfied the liability and proceeded with further steps for causing it to be realised with the intervention of the Revenue Authorities, which in turn forms the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 11-02-2010, coercive proceedings were intercepted on condition, that the petitioner deposited a sum of rupees Ten thousand, which is stated as complied with . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the balance liability by way of reasonable installments.

¶36

Heard the counsel appearing for the forth respondent as well. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to clear the balance amount due under Exhibit P2, by way of 'five' equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be paid on or

¶37

¶38

WP (C) NO. 4608 OF 2010

¶39

before 30-03-2010, to be followed by subsequent installments to be effected on or before the 30^th of the succeeding months.

¶40

Subject to this, all recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the liability as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in lump sum.

¶41

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,

¶42

JUDGE.

¶43

rkc

Suresh v. District Collector, Thrissur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh v. District Collector, Thrissur and Others

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

Muhmmed Ashfaq.v Vs the Manager, the Union Bankof India

Smt.Kadeeja Vs the District Collector

Rajan @ Padmadharan Vs Idukki District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

The Federal Bank Limited Vs Annakutty

Suja Mohan and Others Vs State Bank of Travancore and Another

Raju Kurian Vs K.S.E.B. & Others