Dismissed

T.L. Gopakumar v. the Tahsildar

Kerala HC1 Oct 2013RP/748/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition against an original writ discharge order, the petitioner challenged the initiation of revenue recovery proceedings by a bank alleging lack of liability quantification and citing a government moratorium for farmers. The single judge dismissed the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed with no costs awarded to the petitioner.

T.L. Gopakumar Vs the Tahsildar — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/9TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

RP.No. 748 of 2013 () IN WP(C).20993/2013

¶6

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

T.L. GOPAKUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.K.LAKSHMANAN, THOPPILVEEDU, KARIPPALICHALA P.O. GOVINDAPURAM, MUTHALAMADA-678507, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, CHITTUR - 678 101.

¶12

2. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, CHITTUR - 678 101.

¶13

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTHALAMADA I VILLAGE, MUTHALAMADA P.O., CHITTUR TALUK PALAKKAD - 678 101

¶14

4. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BRANCH, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER - 678 101

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶16

R4 BY SRI.TOM K.THOMAS

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

DCS

¶19

RP.No. 748 of 2013

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶22

ANNEXURE A- COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02.09.2013 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT

¶23

ANNEXURE B- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT

¶24

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶29

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

¶30

R.P. No. 748 of 2013 IN

¶31

W.P.(C). No. 20993 of 2013

¶32

------------------------------------- Dated this the 01^st day of October, 2013

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

Two points are urged in this review petition and they are as

¶35

follows:-

¶36

i) There has been no quantification of liability before initiating revenue recovery proceedings. Reliance is placed on Shriram Engineering Construction Company Ltd. v. KSIDC [2007(2) KLT 388] .

¶37

ii) The revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the bank have to be kept in abeyance for the time being. This is in view of the moratorium declared by the Government in regard to the farmers in Chittur Taluk.

¶38

The revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated to realise the loan advanced by the bank to the petitioner. The petitioner has not disputed the quantum even in Ext. P2 representation filed. The bank points out that two other notices earlier issued have not even been responded to by the petitioner. The quantification of liability arises only when there is a breach of contract. The quantification is necessitated to assess the damages for such breach. The decision cited by the petitioner

¶39

R.P. No. 748 of 2013 in W.P.(C). No. 20993 of 2013 2

¶40

relates to the breach of contract and the consequent revenue recovery proceedings initiated. That is not the case in the instant one wherein only the loan arrears are sought to be recovered.

¶41

No document has been produced by the review petitioner to show the existence of such a moratorium. The bank emphatically denies the moratorium allegedly extended to the farmers in Chittur Taluk. The data furnished in the writ petition is insufficient to hold that the petitioner is entitled to such benefit. There is no error apparent on the face of the record.

¶42

The review petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶43

V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶44

DCS

T.L. Gopakumar v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.L. Gopakumar v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.C.Thomas Vs State Bank of Travancore

Georgy Joseph Vs Federal Bank Ltd.

Jancy Emmanuel Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank

B.Pushpangathan Vs State of Kerala

Mariamma Xavier Vs Mathew

C.H.Moidu Vs the Kozhikode District Panchayat & Ors.