Disposed

Beena Venugopal v. the Special Deputy Tahsiladar

Kerala HC1 Feb 2012WP(C)/1916/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning loan recovery and disputed dues, the petitioner challenged an inconsistency in amounts shown in the bank statement versus the revenue demand notice. The court closed the petition upon the bank's assurance to correct the figure and issue a fresh notice.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; Bank to intimate actual dues and issue fresh notice. Petitioner may approach Bank for scheme benefits or installments.

Beena Venugopal Vs the Special Deputy Tahsiladar — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/12TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

WPC.No. 1916 of 2012 (L) ------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

BEENA VENUGOPAL PADMINI NIVAS, POOTHAPPARA, AZHIKODE P.O. KANNUR-670009.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILADAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KANNUR-670001. 2. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KANNUR MAIN BRANCH, KANNUR-670001.

¶11

R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. S. JAMAL R2 BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, SC SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

...2/-

¶15

WPC.No. 1916 of 2012 (L)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶18

EXT.P1	THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS GIVEN BY THE BANK.
EXT.P2	THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.
	D5.2011/53394/13/200 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT UNDER
	SECTION 7 DATED 21/11/2011.

¶19

EXT.P3	THE PHOTOSTAT COPY	OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE
	PETITIONER TO THE	IST RESPONDENT.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶25

....................................................... W.P.(C).1916/2012

¶26

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2012

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Petitioner availed of a loan from the respondent Bank. Default was committed and revenue recovery proceedings have now been initiated. While in Ext.P1 statement of Accounts

¶29

furnished by the Bank, the dues of the petitioner has been indicated as Rs.10,47,411/-, in Ext.P2 demand notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, her liability is shown to be Rs.16,67,867/-. It is mainly pointing out the inconsistency in the amount, after filing Ext.P3 objection before the first respondent, this writ petition has been filed.

¶30

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank has obtained instructions in the matter. According to the Standing Counsel, petitioner availed a loan of Rs.15 Lakhs in 2007 and that the revenue recovery requisition was made on 1.9.2011 for realising the amount of Rs.16,67,867/-. It is stated that it is on that basis, Ext.P2 demand notice has been issued. However, in the meanwhile, petitioner had paid Rs.2 Lakhs on 3.11.2011 and Rs.4 Lakhs on 9.12.2011. It is stated that these amounts were not

¶31

W.P.(C).1916/12

¶32

given credit and therefore, Ext.P2 was issued. Standing counsel also undertakes that the Bank will immediately intimate the revenue authorities the actual amount due from the petitioner and on that basis fresh notice will be issued.

¶33

The aforesaid explanation and the undertaking given on behalf of the respondent Bank should redress the grievance of the petitioner. Therefore, recording the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the respondent Bank, the writ petition is closed clarifying that it will be open to the petitioner to approach the Bank for the benefit of OTS Scheme if any, and also for instalment facility.

¶34

ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge

¶35

mrcs

Beena Venugopal v. the Special Deputy Tahsiladar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beena Venugopal v. the Special Deputy Tahsiladar

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

Sujathan & Others Vs S.N.D.P.Yogam,Kollam

Vasantha Kumari Vs State Bank of Travancore

Basil N Paul Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Santhimadam Builders Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/S. Nilkamal Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Vat)

Rohn Enterprise, Mahe Represented by Proprietor Sudhi Kotayil Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Palakkad