Partly allowed

Subran K.K. v. the District Collector, Thrissur

Kerala HC18 May 2016WP(C)/10437/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged recovery notices issued for defaulted bank loans. The High Court permitted repayment via twelve monthly instalments and directed officials to keep recovery proceedings in abeyance pending payment.

What did the court decide?

Permission to pay loan outstanding in twelve monthly instalments; recovery proceedings kept in abeyance for the said period.

Subran K.K. Vs the District Collector, Thrissur — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MAY 2016/28TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 10437 of 2016 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. SUBRAN K.K., S/O.KUNJAYYAPPAN, PROPRIETOR, NEW STAR HOLLOW BRICKS KALAPURAKKAL HOUSE, MURIKKUNGAL, EAST KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

2. SUDEESH, S/O.SUBRAN.K.K., KALAPURAKKAL HOUSE, MURIKKUNGAL, EAST KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SAMSUDIN

¶10

SRI.M.S.MOHAMMED ANSARY SRI.K.C.ANTONY MATHEW

¶11

SRI.JITHIN LUKOSE

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE - 680 003, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

2.THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, CHALAKKUDY - 680 307, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

3.CANARA BANK, KODAKARA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KODAKARA - 680 684, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE R3 BY SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

mbr/

¶19

WP(C).No. 10437 of 2016 (D)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN SANCTION LETTER DATED 30-05-2011. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27-07-2012 ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, DIC, THRISSUR. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT U/S.13(2) OF SARFAESI ACT TO 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DATED 29/03/2016. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 26-02-2016 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 26-02-2016 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶28

-----------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No. 10437 of 2016

¶29

-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 18^th day of May, 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The first petitioner is the father of the second

¶32

petitioner. The first petitioner has availed a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from the third respondent Bank. Likewise, the

¶33

second petitioner has also availed a loan of Rs.60,000/from the very same Bank. The petitioners have not repaid

¶34

the loans as per the terms of the agreement. Consequently, revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated against

¶35

them for recovery of the loan outstanding. Ext.P6 is the demand notice issued to the first petitioner and Ext.P7 is the demand notice issued to the second petitioner. The petitioners challenge Exts.P6 and P7 notices in this writ

¶36

W.P.(C).No. 10437 of 2016

¶37

-2-

¶38

petition.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Standing Counsel for the third

¶40

respondent Bank.

¶41

The limited prayer made by the learned

¶42

counsel for the petitioners at the time of hearing was for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to pay the amounts due to the third respondent Bank in reasonable instalments. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioners to pay the loan outstanding in twelve

¶43

monthly instalments.

¶44

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of

¶45

permitting the petitioners to pay the loan outstanding in

¶46

W.P.(C).No. 10437 of 2016

¶47

-3-

¶48

twelve monthly instalments commencing from 15^th June 2016. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners will

¶49

be kept in abeyance for the said period. Needless to say that if the petitioners commit default in remitting the instalments as aforesaid, the authorities under the Revenue Recovery Act will be at liberty to resume the proceedings initiated against them.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶52

bpr

Subran K.K. v. the District Collector, Thrissur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subran K.K. v. the District Collector, Thrissur

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

Jancy Jenson Vs District Collector

Ajikumar Vs Soman Nair

P.v.Job Vs Lucy Ittup

A.B.Noushad Vs State of Kerala

Gopakumar B Nair Vs the Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd.

E.v.Chandran Vs the Ditrict Collector