Disposed

Kochukuttan Pv v. Nandakumar

Kerala HC29 Aug 2016OP (MAC)/90/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged recovery proceedings under Sections 7 and 34 of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act initiated during pending appeals against an ex parte award. Court stayed recovery action under Section 7 for two months to enable Tribunal consideration of set aside application, while Section 34 proceedings continue.

What did the court decide?

Action under Section 7 of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act kept in abeyance for two months; Section 34 proceedings continue.

Kochukuttan Pv Vs Nandakumar — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/7TH BHADRA, 1938 OP (MAC).No. 90 of 2016 (O) ---------------------------OPMV 778/2009 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA --------

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

1. KOCHUKUTTAN PV S/O.VELAYUDHAN, POOKKALATH HOUSE, POYYA, POOPPATHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶7

2. SHYNI W/O.KOCHUKUTTAN POOKKALATH HOUSE, POYYA, POOPPATHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SAMSUDIN

¶9

SRI.A.M.BABU SRI.C.K.MOHAMMED NIYAZ SRI.JITHIN LUKOSE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. NANDAKUMAR S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOPATHY, POYYA, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680121

¶12

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR, AYYANTHOLE 680003,. THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶13

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, KODUNGALLOOR 680664, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶14

4. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VETTUKATTIL BUILDINGS, MG ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682035

¶15

R2 & R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

SMT.C.S.SHEEJA

¶17

R4 BY SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD

¶18

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

OP (MAC).No. 90 of 2016 (O)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 25.07.2013 IN OP(MV) NO. 778/2009 ON THE FILES OF THE MACT, IRINJALKUDA EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 14.07.2016 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER U/S.7 AND U/S.34 EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN SUPPORT OF IA.NO. 3696/2016 IN OP(MV) 778/2009 EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN SUPPORT OF IA.3695/2016 IN OP (MV)NO. 778/2009

¶24

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO. 613/2011

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶30

O.P.(MAC) No.90 of 2016 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 29^th day of August, 2016

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Petitioner, owner of a goods autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL 7 H 4368, has suffered with an award in OP(MV) No.778/2009 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, hereinafter called “the Tribunal”. Petitioner has filed Exts.P3 and P4 applications seeking to condone delay and set aside the ex parte award, which is pending consideration before the Tribunal. In the interregnum, recovery proceedings under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act is initiated, evident from Ext.P2 notice. It is in this background, challenging Ext.P2, petitioner has approached this court by filing this original petition.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleadings.

¶34

The sole question to be considered is whether any interference is required to the recovery action initiated by the

¶35

O.P.(MAC) No.90 of 2016.

¶36

¶37

respondents to recover amount from the petitioner. Since the application to set aside the ex parte award along with delay condonation petition is pending consideration before the Tribunal, I think it is only appropriate that, action initiated under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act can be kept in abeyance for a period of two months, enabling the petitioner to pursue the application filed before the Tribunal. Accordingly I do so. However, I make it clear that, proceedings pursuant to Section 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act can go on subject to the order to be passed by the Tribunal in the applications submitted by the petitioner. Tribunal shall consider Exts.P3 and P4 applications at the earliest and at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

Original petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶39

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶40

smv 29.08.2016

Kochukuttan Pv v. Nandakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kochukuttan Pv v. Nandakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Chandrakumar Vs Antony Chacko

P.v.Karunan @ Karunakaran Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

M/S.Moolathara Ksheerolpathaka Operative Society Ltd. Vs Deputy Director, Dairy Development Department

Abdul Nishad Vs Marykutty Issac

Ummayya Vs Ashraf P.P.

The Managing Committee of Chandanakkampa Vs the Deputy Director of Dairy Development