A writ petition challenging revenue recovery proceedings for default on margin money for a micro-enterprise was dismissed. The Court found no evidence that the loan covered by the scheme included the margin money disbursed separately, rendering the challenge baseless.
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 ANTONY DOMINIC
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2013/13TH CHAITHRA 1935
WP(C).No. 7046 of 2013 (E)
PETITIONER(S):
K.V. SANATHANAN, S/O.LATE K.V.NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 40 YEARS PUNCHAVAYAL, KAYAKUNNU P.O., PANAMARAM WAYANAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE TAHSILDAR, MANANTHAWADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 671 121.
2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, MANANTHAWADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT PIN 671 121.
3. THE MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, MUTTIL, KALPETTA WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 671 123.
ADDL.R4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, PANAMARAM BRANCH, WAYANAD, PIN 671123.
(ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14/3/13 IN IA 4106/2013)
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RADDL.4 BY ADV. SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN,SC,CANARA BAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 7046 of 2013 (E) ---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------
EXHIBIT P1:TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE CREDIT GURANTEE FUND SCHEME FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF DETAILS OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT INFORMATIONACT ON PAYMENT OF GUARANTEE FEE AND ANNUAL FEE. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENTS UNDER SECTION 33 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.
//True Copy//
PA to Judge
Rp
ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 7046 OF 2013
===================
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2013
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned standing counsel for the Bank.
WPC.No.7046/13
:2 :
against him at the instance of the 3rd respondent is illegal.
Bank. It is also stated that the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the Bank does not include the margin money that was availed by him. In so far as the 3rd respondent is concerned, learned Government pleader has produced before this court agreement executed by the petitioner on 24/10/05 for availing of the margin money loan of `2,50,000/-. It is stated that clause 5 of the agreement empowers the 3rd respondent to recover the defaulted dues by initiating revenue recovery action. It is also stated that the margin money was directly disbursed to the petitioner. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the margin money loan disbursed by the 3rd respondent is not covered by the provisions of Ext.P1 scheme.
WPC.No.7046/13
:3 :
On the other hand, the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader and in particular the agreement dated 24/10/05 produced by the learned Government Pleader proves to the contra. That apart, Government Pleader also produced complete set of papers containing the details of Ext.P1 scheme which shows that it contains a list of Banks which are covered by
the scheme and that the scheme does not cover the 4th respondent. If that be so, the irresistible conclusion that is possible is that the revenue recovery proceedings initiated at the instance of the 3rd respondent cannot be held to be illegal on the basis of the contentions that are now urged by the petitioner.
Writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
//True Copy//
PA to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent for recovery of margin money are illegal under the Credit Guarantee Fund Scheme.
Whether the margin money loan constitutes part of the bank loan covered by the Credit Guarantee Fund Scheme.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
K.V. SANATHANAN
THE TAHSILDAR, MANANTHAWADI
THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, MANANTHAWADI
THE MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, MUTTIL
THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
