Disposed

Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jun 2014WP(C)/17344/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition filed by a bank seeking direction to stop Revenue Authorities from selling attached property and requesting joint court supervision. The court permitted the bank to approach the Government for a representation to conduct the sale of a specific property under joint supervision to ensure priority to State dues and subsequent realisation of bank du

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to approach Government with representation for joint supervision of sale of Item No.1 property to realise State dues first and Bank dues thereafter.

Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/27TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 17344 of 2012 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

DHANLAXMI BANK LIMITED ZONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS ZONAL HEAD RECOVERY.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.DILIP

¶9

SRI.SAJU N.A. SMT.G.LEKHA SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL SMT.P.J.FLONY SRI.ANTONY SHAIJU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARMTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682030.

¶13

3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ENAKULAM, KOCHI-683011.

¶14

4. M/S.ENNAR RUBBERS,

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX MANJU CHITLANGIA EDAKKATTUVAYA, ARAKKUNNAM, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

5. MANJU CHITLANGIA,

¶17

LAKSHMI SADAN, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682020.

¶18

6. ARUN CHITLANGIA,

¶19

LAKSHMI SADAN, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682020.

¶20

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.T. LILLY

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

...2/-

¶24

WP(C).No. 17344 of 2012 (P)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶27

EXT-P1	COPY OF FINAL ORDER IN OA.428/2003 DATED 13/10/2005.
EXT-P2	COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E2-170,173/10-11, 619/11-12 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06/09/2011.
EXT-P3	SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16/6/2012.
EXT-P4	SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16/6/2012.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL ---------------------------------------------------------

¶29

//TRUE COPY//

¶30

P.A. TO JUDGE Mn

¶31

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(C) No.17344 of 2012

¶34

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17^th day of June, 2014

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner bank has approached this Court for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 not to proceed further in pursuance of Exts.P3 and P4 notices and also to issue notice to the petitioner with regard to the liability of respondents 4 to 6. There is yet another prayer that the entire assets attached by the respondent State be sold under the supervision of this Court and appropriation of sale proceeds be made among respondents 1 to 3 and the petitioner, subject to final direction and quantum as determined by this Court.

¶37

Respondents 4 to 6 availed credit facilities from the petitioner bank. As they committed financial indiscipline, the bank filed O.A No.428 of 2003 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam which passed final orders and Recovery Certificate was issued for 25,48,363.55 as on 30.04.2012. When the petitioner₹

¶38

bank brought the schedule of properties for sale through auction respondents 2 and 3 intimated the Recovery Officer that steps were

¶39

WP(C)17344/12 -:2:-

¶40

initiated by the Government against the aforesaid respondents for recovering the amount due from them to the State. Thereafter, respondents 2 and 3 proceeded under Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of the amounts due to them.

¶41

The petitioner alleges that respondents 2 and 3 have not proclaimed Item No.II Certificate Scheduled property for sale towards realisation of an amount of 41,12,055/- with interest₹ fixing the date of sale as 26.07.2012. It is further alleged that no upset price was fixed based on real assessment of the value of the property. According to the petitioner, Item No.1 property (as per the Certificate Schedule) was not put to sale for reasons best known to respondents 2 and 3. The said property itself is more than sufficient to realise the dues of the revenue authorities; it is alleged. Therefore, it is alleged that if Item No. 1 in the Certificate Schedule of property is sold by respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner bank would also be benefited by receiving the balance sale proceeds after liquidating the revenue claim. It is further alleged that the revenue authorities are not co-operating for the same stating that they have discretion to decide the mode of sale and priority over their dues.

¶42

WP(C)17344/12

¶43

-:3:-

¶44

When the matter came up for hearing on 3.4.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Item No.1 property as per the Certificate Schedule is having a road frontage and, therefore, the same would fetch more value. Hence, it was requested that the petitioner be permitted to conduct auction in the presence of the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal and to remit whatever amount due to the respondent State so that the petitioner bank could realise the dues to them from the balance sale consideration, if any. Therefore this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions regarding the matter.

¶45

Today when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the Tahsildar concerned has expressed his ability to take a final decision in the matter as the State has a first charge over the property and final decision on the suggestions made by the petitioner can be taken only at the Government level.

¶46

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that it is only just and proper to direct the petitioner to approach the Government with a representation so that the money due to the Government as well as the petitioner

¶47

WP(C)17344/12

¶48

-:4:-

¶49

bank could be protected.

¶50

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the Government with a proper representation for conducting sale of Item No.1 property in the schedule under joint supervision of the State as well as the petitioner so that whatever amount due to the respondent State could be realised first and thereafter the petitioner bank can realise the dues to them from the balance sale proceeds, if any.

¶51

Sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶52

krj

¶53

/True Copy/

¶54

P.A to Judge

Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala

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

Susy Kishore Vs Village Officer

Abraham John Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Usha Nambiar Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Kasaragod

K.a.Baraham Vs State of Kerala

Vijeesh T.S. Vs the District Collector

T. Radhakrishnan Vs R.T.A. Kannur