Allowed

V.M. Abdulkhader v. the Kerala State Development Corporation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tibes Limited

Kerala HC12 Aug 2014WP(C)/13284/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging writ-writ recovery proceedings initiated by the State Development Corporation for a loan default, the High Court relied on Supreme Court precedent. The Court held that proceedings started in 2012, more than three years after the default, were time-barred. The writ petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and the under-recovery proceedings under the RR Act against the petitioner are set aside. The petitioner is declared not liable to be proceeded against for the recovery of

V.M. Abdulkhader Vs the Kerala State Development… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/21ST SRAVANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).NO. 13284 OF 2012 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

V.M. ABDULKHADER, VELLACHALIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM, AMBALLOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.PAUL KURIAKOSE, SRI.K.A.ANISH.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - FOR SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, 32/2510, CHITHRA, REP: BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, OPPOSITE TO THE MUTHOOT HONDA, PALARAIVATTOM. P.O, KOCHI - 682 025.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 030.

¶12

3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA, PIN - 683 101.

¶13

4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), KANAYANNUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

¶14

*ADDL.R5. IMPLEADED:

¶15

5. MR.T.R.SAJIV,

¶16

THERPADAN HOUSE, ATHIRAPPILLY ESTATE DIVISION, KALADY PLANTATION.P.O., ANGAMALY, PIN : 683 581.

¶17

*IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 20/06/2012 IN I.A 8032/2012.

¶18

R1 BY SRI.C.K.JAYAKUMAR, S.C, R2 TO R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.V. LONACHAN,

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Prv.

¶21

W.P.(C).NO.13284/2012 - I:

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT. P1: PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 29-09-2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO MR T.R. SAJIV AND RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶25

EXT.P2: PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 08-03-2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT. P3: PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 08-03-2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 13284 of 2012 ====================== Dated this the 12^th day of August, 2014

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The petitioner is a surety to a loan, availed by the additional 5^th respondent. The only ground, urged before this Court, is of limitation, which according to the petitioner bars the remedy of recovery, even under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (RR Act). The admitted facts, as is revealed from the Writ Petition, counter filed by the 4^th respondent and the statement filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent, would support the claim.

¶36

The loan was availed on 10.10.1994 and disbursed on the said date. The period of repayment of the loan was 5 years, since the additional 5^th respondent was obliged to make repayments in 60 equal monthly instalments. Admittedly, default was committed thereon. It is stated that remittance was made in 2002; specifically on 05.10.2002, by the additional 5^th respondent.

¶37

The counter affidavit of the 4^th respondent

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 13284 of 2012

¶39

¶40

specifically states that the requisition has been made by the 1^st respondent under Section 69(2) of RR Act by a communication bearing No.B6-13645/12, dated 06.03.2012. Going by the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Kalliyanikutty [1999 (2) KLT 146 (SC)] the revenue recovery proceedings, cannot be deemed to efface limitation and the proceedings would have to be initiated within the period of limitation. The limitation of recovery of money being 3 years, the proceedings initiated in the year 2012 is grossly out of the period. Exts. P2 and P3 recovery proceedings under the RR Act, against the petitioner herein is hence set aside. It is declared that, the petitioner is not liable to be proceeded against for recovery of the amounts, which is the subject matter of the above Writ Petition.

¶41

The Writ Petition is allowed, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.

¶42

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶43

V.M. Abdulkhader v. the Kerala State Development Corporation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tibes Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.M. Abdulkhader v. the Kerala State Development Corporation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tibes Limited

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

P.Suresh Kumar Vs New Indian Express Exployees Association(Kerala)

Sayid Mohammed Vs Deputy Tahsildar

Thomas Varkey and Others Vs Deputy Tahasildar,Revenue Recovery Offi

Geo Fox Vs Sri.C.v.Sasidharan

C.H.Abdul Khader Vs State of Kerala

Aravindan C Vs the Authorised Officer