Disposed

Beena a v. District Manager and Another

Kerala HC8 Apr 2013WP(C)/31129/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged recovery action and lack of One Time Settlement Scheme. Court found the scheme is currently in force, granted benefit of exonerating petitioner to claim it separately, and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to claim the benefit of the One Time Settlement scheme to be exonerated of penal interest and get 50% deduction in interest liability.

Beena a Vs District Manager and Another — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/18TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 31129 of 2011 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

A. BEENA, W/O.JAYACHANDRAN, PANISERY HOUSE, AZHIYOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, KERALA STATE BACKWARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE -673 001.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), VADAKARA- 673 101.

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC. R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.JOSEPH GEORGE.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

WP(C).No. 31129 of 2011 (M)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶18

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE NOTICES U/S.7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.

¶19

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE NOTICES U/S.34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.

¶20

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 26/10/2011.

¶21

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C) No.31129 of 2011

¶28

Dated this the 8^th day of April, 2013

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Petitioner availed of a loan from the first respondent for a business purpose. On account of the default committed, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated and it was thereupon that this writ petition was filed challenging the recovery action and also complaining that the respondents are not allowing the petitioner to settle the liability by granting the benefit of a One Time Settlement Scheme.

¶31

When the writ petition was taken up, counsel for the respondents submitted that a One Time Settlement Scheme is now in force and that if the petitioner avails of the benefit, she will be exonerated of the liability for penal interest and that she will get 50% deduction in the interest liability also.

¶32

W.P.(c) No.31129 of 2011

¶33

: 2 :

¶34

Since the main complaint of the petitioner is regarding the absence of One Time Settlement Scheme and as there is such a scheme now in force, I dispose of this writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to claim the benefit of the One Time Settlement scheme now in force.

¶35

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶36

Beena a v. District Manager and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beena a v. District Manager and Another

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

Manager, Deshabhimani Press Vs v.R.Balakrishnan

Rosy Vs District Collector

V.B.Rajkumar Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs the Regional Transport Officer,Alappuzha

M/S.West India Steel Company Limited Vs the State of Kerala and Others

M.D.Jayanthan Namboodiripad Vs State of Kerala