Allowed

Patricia Jesudasan v. the General Manager

Kerala HC7 Apr 2011WP(C)/10833/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a revenue recovery notice for disputed telephone bills. The court held interest liability begins from the arbitration award date. It calculated the balance due by the petitioner and ordered a specific payment to settle the remaining dues.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the 2nd respondent to wipe off the entire amounts due, including collection charges.

Patricia Jesudasan Vs the General Manager — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933

¶4

WP(C).No. 10833 of 2010(D) ----------------------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

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

¶7

PATRICIA JESUDASAN, THRIPTHA BHAVAN, KAKKOOTTUMOOLA, MAYYANAD, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR SMT.P.LISSY JOSE.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., TELECOM DISTRICT, KOLLAM.

¶12

2. THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, GMTD, BSNL, KOLLAM.

¶13

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

¶14

4. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KOLLAM.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN

¶16

SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP

¶17

R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

WP(C)NO.10833/2010

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

P1 COPY OF THE TELEPHONE BILL DATED 1/9/1992 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

P1(A) COPY OF THE TELEPHONE BILLDATED 1/11/1992 ISSUEDTO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE OF ATTACHMENT NO.D10-995/2003 DATED 17/11/2003 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/2/2009 IN WP(C)NO.4464/2009.

¶27

P4 COPY OF THE RECEIPTS OF PAYMENT OF MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶28

P5 COPY OF THE CLEARANCE LETTER DATED 23/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶29

P6 COPY OF THE R.R. DEMAND NOTICE NO.D2-4207/09DATED 10/08/2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶30

P7 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 15/09/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶31

P8 COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 22/8/2002 PASSED BY THE ARBITRATOR, BSNL

¶32

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶33

R1(A) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21/2/2009 FORWARDED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER.

¶34

R1(B) COPY OF THE CALCULATION SHEET FORWARDED ALONG WITH THE LETTER DATED 21/2/2010.

¶35

R1(C) COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTE FOR RS 23089/- TOBE PAID ON 2/3/2009.

¶36

R1(D) COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTE FOR RS 23089/- TO BE PAID ON 2/4/2009.

¶37

R1(E) COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTE FOR RS 23089/- TO BE PAID ON 2/5/2009.

¶38

R1(F) COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTE FOR RS 23089/- TO BE PAID ON 1/6/2009

¶39

R1(G) COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTE FOR RS 23089/- TO BE PAID ON 1/7/2009

¶40

R1(H) COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTE FOR RS 23089/- TO BE PAID ON 1/8/2009.

¶41

R1(I) COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTE FOR RS 23089/- TO BE PAID ON 1/9/2009

¶42

R1(J) COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTE FOR RS 23089/- TO BE PAID ON 1/10/2009

¶43

R1(K) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8/5/2009 OF THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER REQUESTING THE COLLECTOR TO TAKE REVENUE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶48

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.10833 of 2010

¶49

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7^th day of April, 2011

¶50

J U D G M E N T

¶51

The petitioner was a subscriber of telephone services from the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. Three bills for a total amount of Rs.59,886/- was served on the petitioner. The petitioner disputed the bills. The matter was referred for arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. That resulted in Ext.P8, whereby the petitioner was directed to make the payment of the bills in four monthly instalments. The petitioner challenged the same before this court by filing W.P. (C) No.4464/2009 in which, by Ext.P3 judgment this court directed as follows:

¶52

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and also learned Government Pleader.

¶53

The writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to pay the entire amount due with interest in eight equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 1.3.2009. Further instalments should be paid on or before the first working day of the succeeding months. Respondents will serve a statement on the petitioner within two weeks from today indicating the exact amount of instalments to be paid in terms of this judgment. If the petitioner does not pay any single instalment, he will lose the benefit of this judgment and it will be open to the respondent to proceed against the petitioner.”

¶54

W.P.(C)No.10833 of 2010

¶55

-2-

¶56

This judgment was pending revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the B.S.N.L. through the revenue recovery authorities. According to the petitioner, as directed in the judgment no statements were issued to the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner paid 8 instalments at the rate of Rs.6,287/- as well as an amount of Rs.12,585/- as evidenced by Ext.P4 receipts. Thereafter, the Village Officer concerned issued Ext.P5 certifying that the petitioner paid the entire amount. But later the petitioner was served with Ext.P6 revenue recovery notice for an amount of Rs.1,78,725/- in respect of the same bills. The petitioner is challenging the same.

¶57

A counter affidavit has been filed wherein the 1^st and 2^nd respondents would take the stand that they did not receive any money from the revenue recovery authorities pursuant to the requisition earlier issued and that is why a fresh requisition for Rs.1,78,725/- was issued including interest also. But they do not now dispute the fact that the petitioner had directly paid to the revenue

¶58

W.P.(C)No.10833 of 2010

¶59

-3-

¶60

authorities a total amount of Rs.62,881/- covered by the bills. But they would take the contention that the petitioner is liable to pay interest from the date of the original bills adding which the total amount would come to Rs.1,75,970/and revenue recovery charges of Rs.8,796/- totalling Rs.1,84,730/-, out of which after deducting the amount of Rs.62,881/- already paid, the balance amount has to be paid.

¶61

The petitioner's answer to the said contention is that the petitioner is not liable to pay any interest at least up to the date of Ext.P8 award which is dated 22.08.2002.

¶62

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶63

Instead of relegating the parties to further disputes in the matter of calculation of interest, I have decided to determine the amount due from the petitioner taking interest as due only with effect from Ext.P8 award under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. Calculating interest at the rate of 6% from that date for 7 years till 2009 which is the date when the petitioner paid the amounts to

¶64

W.P.(C)No.10833 of 2010

¶65

-4-

¶66

the revenue authorities rounding off the figures. The total amount including collection charges would come to approximately Rs.88,200/-. The petitioner has already paid Rs.62,881/-. The balance amount would be Rs.25,390/-. Rounding off the same, I direct that the petitioner pay a further amount of Rs.25,000/- to the 2^nd respondent directly within a period of one month, which will completely wipe off the entire amounts due from the petitioner to the respondents including the collection charges.

¶67

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy//

¶70

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶71

shg/

Patricia Jesudasan v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patricia Jesudasan v. the General Manager

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

Sayyed Ulamam Sha Vs Cyril Vimal Mendez

Gopalakrishnan Assari.N and Others Vs Sajeeb Kumar Padjoshi

Dr.M.K.Sushama Vs the Accountant General

Abdul Jaleel Vs Director of Health Services

Ashok Kumar Vs a.N.Ramesh and Others

B.Vijayan Vs State of Kerala