Dismissed

C.I.Varghese v. the Divisional Forest Officer and Others

Kerala HC31 May 2016RP/805/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court addressed a review petition where the petitioner claimed full discharge of arrears. The Court found a clerical error where a zero was omitted, inflating the payable amount. A conditional relief was granted allowing the remaining balance to be paid without interest.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed subject to condition: interest on Rs. 81,451 waived if paid by August 31, 2009.

C.I.Varghese Vs the Divisional Forest Officer and Others — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931

¶5

RP.No. 805 of 2007(A)

¶6

--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.22682/2003 Dated 04/10/2006

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S): REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶8

¶9

C.I.VARGHESE, S/O.IYPE, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHUNDATTU VEEDU, VENDUVAZHI, KARUKADAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.BOBY MATHEW SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶12

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MALAYATTOOR RANGE, MALAYATTOOR.

¶14

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶15

THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶16

BY GOVT. PLEADER

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶19

.................................................................... R.P. No.805 of 2007 in W.P.(C) No.22682 of 2003

¶20

.................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009.

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Review Petition is filed stating that petitioner had in fact discharged

¶23

the entire liability due to the Government. According to him, amount due was only Rs.9,050/-, which he paid in instalments. However, respondents have filed counter statement to the Review Petition whereunder it is stated that in the original RR proceedings there is a typing error wherein the “last 1” in the debt amount was omitted to be included, with the result instead of showing the liability as Rs.90,501/-, it was shown as Rs.9,050/-. Therefore, the petitioner's claim of discharge of liability is devoid of any merit. However, since the clerical mistake of the respondents led to delay in recovery, I waive interest on Rs.81,451/- provided petitioner makes payment of the same before 31^st August, 2009. In other words, if petitioner remits Rs.81,451/-, respondent shall treat the same as in full discharge of the

¶24

whole arrears and the balance towards interest will stand waived. However, if petitioner does not clear this amount as above, then the entire

¶25

¶26

balance amount with interest will be recovered from the petitioner. Review

¶27

Petition is dismissed but subject to the condition stated above.

¶28

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge

¶29

pms

C.I.Varghese v. the Divisional Forest Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.I.Varghese v. the Divisional Forest Officer and Others

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

Joe Antony Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority

Sherin John Vs the Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore

T.V Mathew Vs the Cheif Engineer(I&a)

Rasiya N.K Vs the Regional Manager

P.R.Geetha Vs State of Kerala

Chathan Vs the State of Kerala