Dismissed

C.Ravunni Nair and Others v. Kerala State Finance Enterprises

Kerala HC22 Aug 2014WP(C)/2364/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged recovery proceedings under a chitty scheme dispute regarding adjustments and mortgage security. The High Court held that detailed accounting of chitty transactions is beyond writ jurisdiction. It ordered the respondent to allow the petitioner to repay dues in instalments to halt recovery of attached properties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to inform total dues as on 20.09.2014 and settle in ten equal monthly instalments. First instalment payable by 29.09.2014. Default would revive recovery proceedings.

C.Ravunni Nair and Others Vs Kerala State… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2014/31ST SRAVANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 2364 of 2010 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

1. C.RAVUNNI NAIR, SANKARATHU VALIYA VEETIL

¶8

VARAVOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK

¶9

THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

2. NARYANIKUTTY, W/O.RAVUNNI NAIR,

¶11

KEZHAKEDIL HOUSE, ATTOOR POST, VIA. WADAKKANCHERY.

¶12

3. KATHIAYANI AMMA, KIZHAKKETHIL,

¶13

EZHUTHASSAN VEETTIL, MANALADY, ATTOOR P.O.

¶14

THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADVS.SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶16

SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN

¶17

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶18

1. KERALA STATE FINANCE ENTERPRISES

¶19

REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, THRISSUR-20.

¶20

2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR)

¶21

KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISE, THRISSUR.

¶22

3. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISE,

¶23

MANNUTHY BRANCH, THRISSUR.

¶24

4. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISE,

¶25

PATTURAIKKAL BRANCH, THRISSUR.

¶26

R1, R3 & R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.C.V. ALEXANDER

¶27

BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS

¶28

BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.JOHNSON T. JOHN

¶29

BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN

¶30

BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.BABU VARGHESE

¶31

R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.V. LONACHAN

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

¶34

...2/-

¶35

WP(C).No. 2364 of 2010 (U)

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶38

EXT.P1	: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5-2-2001 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2	COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY DATED 29-6-2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO. 24989/2005.
EXT.P4	COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SALE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY DATED 13-12-2006.
EXT.P5	COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 28-8-2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5022/2007.
EXT.P6	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXT.P7	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXT.P8	COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13-1-2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH REVISED STATEMENT DATED 17-12-2009.
EXT.P9	COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5022/2007.
EXT.P10	COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED AGAINST ISSUANCE OF EXT P-8 BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXT.P11	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3-12-2013 SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH AD CARD.
EXT.P12	COPY OF LETTER DATED 9-12-2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, RR, KSFE LTD, THRISSUR.

¶39

(Contd...)

¶40

WP(C).No. 2364 of 2010 (U)

¶41

EXT.P13 COPY OF THE NO LIABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TOWARDS SDT/TSR/1083/00-01.

¶42

EXT.P14 COPY OF THE NO LIABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TOWARDS SDT/TSR/1084/00-01.

¶43

EXT.P15 COPY OF NO LIABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TOWARDS SDT/TSR/1085/00-01.

¶44

EXT.P16 COPY OF THE ORDER OF WITHDRAWAL OF ATTACHMENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO SUB REGISTRAR, CHELAKKARA SRO WITH REGARD TO SDT/TSR/1083, 1084, 1085/00-01 .

¶45

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶48

¶49

K.Vinod Chandran, J.

¶50

W.P.(C).No.2364 of 2010-U

¶51

-------------------------------------------------

¶52

Dated this the 22^nd day of August, 2014

¶53

JUDGMENT

¶54

The petitioners are aggrieved by

¶55

Exhibit P8 demand made by the 1^st respondent wherein the petitioners were directed to satisfy the amounts due in the two chitties subscribed by the 1^st petitioner in which the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners were sureties. The petitioners' contention, on looking at the writ petition, is mainly one of credit having not been given for the various payments made. But for merely raising grounds of illegality and arbitrariness, nothing is placed before this Court to substantiate the same. The claim raised with respect to the credits and the entitlement of dividend and interest as also adjustments of other prized chitties, cannot be looked into by this Court in an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶56

¶57

WP(C).No.2364 of 2010

¶58

The learned counsel for the

¶59

petitioner would contend that after Exhibits P3 and P5 judgments, the respondent cannot proceed for recovery, on the basis of a mortgage, admittedly made only for a loan transaction. It is to be noticed that Exhibit P3 judgment in fact granted three instalments to the petitioner to clear off the loan accounts. At the stage of Exhibit P3, going by what is stated in the judgment, the petitioner had a contention that the prized money was not adjusted towards the loan, while the Standing Counsel for the KSFE contended that the same was adjusted and the recovery was for balance arrears of subscription. This Court noticed that if the prized money was not adjusted, it is to be adjusted and with respect to the balance remaining in the loan or the subscription, the entire arrears would be settled in three monthly instalments. It is clear that the petitioner has not complied with the said judgment, since, according to the KSFE, the petitioner had paid only an

¶60

¶61

WP(C).No.2364 of 2010

¶62

amount of Rs.10,000/- in 2006 after the said judgment was passed.

¶63

Looking at Exhibit P5, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is a categoric declaration, insofar as the mortgage of the property was held to be only for the loan and not for the chitty transaction as such. This Court cannot countenance such an argument, because, at that point of time what was noticed by this Court was that the respondent had no case that the land was given as security for chitty instalments. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, contends now that the loan having been adjusted out of the prized money, necessarily the petitioner would have had to provide security for the prized money taken, before the chitty subscriptions were complete. Future subscriptions were to be paid in the chitty and the prized money can be disbursed only on providing security. It was in that context that the security, which was given for the loan, was extended to the chitty

¶64

¶65

WP(C).No.2364 of 2010

¶66

transaction. It is also to be noticed that, at present even if the mortgage is not existent, in the revenue recovery proceedings initiated the authorities have attached the properties and that alone would suffice for proceeding against the property.

¶67

The further contention raised by the petitioner that the prized money in a chitty availed by his wife was not disbursed is countered by the learned counsel for the KSFE on the ground that no security was offered in the said transaction and, hence, the prized money was not disbursed. Admittedly no further subscriptions were made in the chitty transaction also. Hence, no ground of adjustment can be claimed.

¶68

The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent would submit that the 1^st petitioner in the year 1997 had subscribed to two chitties of a total amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The petitioner had also immediately thereafter, on payment of 12 instalments, availed of a loan of

¶69

¶70

WP(C).No.2364 of 2010

¶71

Rs.2,00,000/- each, from each of the chit transactions. Subsequently, chits were prized for a total sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and after adjustment of the loan, the balance amounts were adjusted to the instalments which were defaulted. The petitioners had failed to make any payment of the periodic instalments, necessitated in a chit transaction and at this point of time, the total liability has risen to Rs.10,13,415/-. It is also specifically pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent from the statement filed that, between the period 2001 and 2006 the 1^st petitioner had paid only an amount of Rs.61,000/-.

¶72

The entire dispute would revolve around chitty transactions and it would not be proper for this Court to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

¶73

Constitution to decide on the adjustments, the loan availed, remittances made in the said loan, the prized money disbursed and so on and so forth. In such circumstances, if the

¶74

¶75

WP(C).No.2364 of 2010

¶76

petitioner approaches the respondent-KSFE with a prayer for instalments within a period of three weeks from today, the KSFE shall inform the petitioner about the total dues in the transactions, as on 20.09.2014 and the same shall be settled by the petitioner in ten equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 29.09.2014 and followed up on the 29^th of every succeeding month. If one default is committed, the revenue recovery proceedings initiated shall be revived and continued.

¶77

With the above directions, the writ petition stands dismissed. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.

¶78

Sd/K.Vinod Chandran, Judge

¶79

vku.

¶80

( true copy )

C.Ravunni Nair and Others v. Kerala State Finance Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Ravunni Nair and Others v. Kerala State Finance Enterprises

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

Smt. Sunitha E.P Vs Binny Varghese

Patumma Vs State Bank of India

B.Kumari Vs Kerala State Women'S Development Corporation

Sunil Kumar E.K Vs Dr.v.M.Gopala Menon

Mathew Kuriachan Vs State of Kerala

Bindhu Shijoy Vs State of Kerala