Allowed

B.Kumari v. Kerala State Women'S Development Corporation

Kerala HC21 Aug 2014WP(C)/12907/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a writ petition challenging revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the Kerala State Women's Development Corporation. The court held that the recovery scheme did not validate a debt that became time-barred, citing the Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed to quash the recovery proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent.

B.Kumari Vs Kerala State Women'S… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2014/30TH SRAVANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 12907 of 2013 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

B. KUMARI, W/O.SATHEESAN, KODIYIL VEEDU, NEHRU JUNCTION, KAZHAKKUTTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA STATE WOMEN'S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.

¶11

2. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.HARISH GOPINATH, SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.V. LONACHAN.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

WP(C).No. 12907 of 2013 (K)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶18

EXT.P1 -	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KSWDC/LAV/BC/TVM/6 DATED 29-05-1995 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ORDER NO.KSWDC.LAV/BC/TVM/6 DATED 27-05-1995.
EXT.P2 -	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31-12-2007.
EXT.P3 -	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KSWDC/BC/400/TVM/97 DATED 14-01-2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P4 -	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KSWDC/BC/400/TVM/95 DATED 31-07-2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P5 -	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.M-5-7820/07/KSWDC DATED 09-07-2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P6 -	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.1083/08 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE LOK AYUKTA DATED 03-10-2008.
EXT.P7 -	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN C.NO.1083/08 BEFORE THE HON'BLE LOK AYUKTA.
EXT.P8 -	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16-12-2011 IN C.NO.1083/08 BEFORE HON'BLE LOK AYUKTA.
EXT.P9-	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLICATION DATED 05-05-2010 FILED BY PETITIONER IN C.NO.1083/08 BEFORE THE HON'BLE LOK AYUKTA.
EXT.P10 -	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE LOK AYUKTA IN COMPLAINT NO.1083/08 DATED 07-08-2012.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶24

=====================

¶25

W.P.(C) No. 12907 of 2013 - K ====================== Dated this the 21^st day of August, 2014

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The petitioner is aggrieved with the revenue recovery proceedings initiated under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. Even according to the petitioner, the petitioner had availed of a loan, as per the sanction evidenced at Ext.P1. The sanction was of the year 1995; specifically on 09.05.1995. The loan granted was for an amount of Rs.73,435/-. As per the conditions as stipulated in Ext.P1, the petitioner had to furnish duly executed cheques, as security for the loan. The interest was @ 6% and the petitioner was obliged to repay the loan along with interest in 60 monthly instalments starting from 3^rd month of the disbursal of the amounts. The petitioner contends that the entire amounts were paid even in the year 2003 and that she also obtained return of the cheques, which were handed over by the 1^st respondent Corporation.

¶28

The petitioner first approached the Lok Ayukta. But,

¶29

W.P.(C) No. 12907 of 2013 - K 2

¶30

however, the Lok Ayukta rejected the claim by Ext. P10, holding that, the petitioner has not produced any document to substantiate the contention of satisfaction. Even going by the objection filed by the 1^st respondent Corporation before the Lok Ayukta, it is not clear as to when the disbursal was made. The period of loan is admitted but it is disputed that, the loans were repaid on 2004. In such circumstance, the petitioner's contention that the loan was availed in 1995 and the repayment period expired in the month of August 2000; has to be accepted. The only question then to be considered is of the question of limitation.

¶31

Again going by the objection filed by the Tahsildar before the Lok Ayukta, as is evident from Ext.P8, the requisition was made by the 1^st respondent Corporation on 15.06.2007. In such circumstance, as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Kalliyanikutty [1999 (2) KLT 146 (SC)] the recovery is barred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the revenue

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 12907 of 2013 - K

¶33

¶34

recovery proceedings does not efface limitation and when a debt is time barred, merely because an institution is notified under Section 71 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act 1968, it does not result in such recovery being effected even beyond the period of limitation. In the present case, the requisition made is definitely beyond the period of limitation.

¶35

For that short ground, the Writ Petition has to be allowed. The recovery initiated by the 1^st respondent for satisfaction of the debts for the alleged dues in the loan account, sanctioned as per Ext.P1, cannot be proceeded with at this stage, for reason of the recovery being barred on account of limitation.

¶36

The Writ Petition hence stands allowed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶39

¶40

// True Copy //

¶41

P.A To Judge.

B.Kumari v. Kerala State Women'S Development Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Kumari v. Kerala State Women'S Development Corporation

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

Saidalavi Vs Mr.M.Sivasankar

V.Sadanandan Vs the State of Kerala

M/S. Venkateshwara Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Smt. Sunitha E.P Vs Binny Varghese

Patumma Vs State Bank of India

Joseph M.J Vs the Thodupuzha Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.