The petitioner challenged revenue recovery proceedings for a 1995 loan, citing time-barred limitation. The Court found no proof of debt acknowledgment and relied on precedent barring recovery of time-barred debts.
Ext. P3 Revenue Recovery proceedings set aside; Original Petition allowed with no cost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933
OP.No. 9424 of 2003(V)
----------------------
PETITIONER:
VARGHESE FRANCIS, MOONJAPALLY HOUSE, MARKET ROAD, KOCHI - 35.
BY ADV. SRI.C.V.SHAJU
RESPONDENTS:
SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP.No. 9424 of 2003(V)
ORDER ON C.M.P.No. 16424 of 2003 IN O.P. 9424 OF 2003
DISMISSED.
20.10.2011
SD/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.6.1999 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3. : TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 17.1.2003.
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
O.P.No.9424 OF 2003
Dated this the 20th October , 2011
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated at the instance of the third respondent Bank in the course of realisation of the amount stated as due under a loan transaction.
2
O.P.No.9424 OF 2003
confronted with the revenue recovery proceedings by serving Ext. P3 notice dated 17.01.2003, which made the petitioner to approach this Court challenging the same on different heads, including the bar of limitation.
the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act in view of the law declared by the Apex Court on the point. Even though there
O.P.No.9424 OF 2003
3
is a contention for the Bank in the counter affidavit, that the petitioner had signed the balance confirmation letter on 06.12.2000, acknowledging the debt, no proof has been produced by the Bank inspite of the fact that the Bank happens to be the custodian of that letter stated as given by the petitioner. In the absence of any proof in support of the said contention, the same can only be treated as a bald one and cannot be accepted or acted upon. Since the averment made by the petitioner that he has not executed any letter of confirmation after April 1998, is not successfully controverted from the part of the Bank by producing requisite material, if any, there is no other alternative for this Court but to draw an adverse inference and to hold it against the Bank that the debt has already become time-barred.
1999 (2) KLT 146 ( State of Kerala vs. V.R. Kalliyanikutty )
holding it in the negative.
O.P.No.9424 OF 2003
4
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
lk
O.P.No.9424 OF 2003
5
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
...................................................
O.P. No. 9424 OF 2003
...................................................
Dated this the 20th October, 2011
J U D G M E N T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether time-barred debt can be enforced via Revenue Recovery proceedings.
Whether the petitioner's plea of limitation regarding a 1995 loan is sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Kerala vs. V.R. KalliyanikuttyFollowed¶46
1999 (2) KLT 146 ( State of Kerala vs. V.R. Kalliyanikutty )
1 provisions across 1 enactments
VARGHESE FRANCIS
DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM
THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERANALLUR VILLAGE, SOUTH CHITTOOR
THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK M.G. ROAD
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
