Disposed

S.Hari Murali v. State of Kerala`

Kerala HC30 May 2016WP(C)/18023/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to pay the amounts due to the Kerala State Financial Enterprises in ten equal monthly instalments. The proceedings under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Recovery of Debts Act were deferred subject to compliance.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of permitting payment in ten equal monthly instalments from 1st July 2016; further proceedings under Exts. P3 and P4 shall be deferred.

S.Hari Murali Vs State of Kerala` — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2016/9TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 18023 of 2016 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

S.HARI MURALI, S/O.S.SREEDHARA PANICKER, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING 'BRINDAVAN', THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695014.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SMT.PREETHY R. NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2.KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THRISSUR-680003.

¶12

3.KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, THRIUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

4.KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, BRANCH OFFICE, PETTAH, REP. BY MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

5.KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, BRANCH OFFICE, CHALAI, REP. BY MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

6.KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, BRANCH OFFICE (EVENING BRANCH), REP. BY MANAGER, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶16

--2--

¶17

--2--

¶18

WP(C).No. 18023 of 2016 (C)

¶19

7.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶20

8.THE SPECIAL DEPTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, THIRUVANANTHAPUR-695001.

¶21

R1, R7 & R8 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE R2 TO R6 BY SRI.ALEXANDER.C.V., SC BY ADV.SRI.JIMMY GEORGE THADATHIL, SC

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

mbr/

¶24

WP(C).No. 18023 of 2016 (C)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶27

P1 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25-06-2014 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE KSFE, THAMPANOOR, EVENING BRANCH.

¶28

P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4-05-2014 ISSUED BY KSFE, THAMPANOOR EVENING BRANCH.

¶29

P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 7 OF K.R.R.ACT.

¶30

P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 34 OF K.R.R.ACT.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶36

W.P.(C) No.18023 of 2016

¶37

Dated 30^th May, 2016.

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

Exts.P3 and P4 proceedings issued under the Revenue Recovery Act are under challenge in this writ petition. Exts.P3 and P4 proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner at the instance of the Kerala State Financial Enterprises (K.S.F.E.) for realisation of the amounts due to them from the petitioner.

¶40

When this matter was taken up for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amounts due to the K.S.F.E. have not been paid on account of sheer inability and that the petitioner is prepared to liquidate the liability if reasonable time is granted. The limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the circumstances, is for a direction to permit the petitioner to liquidate the liability in instalments.

¶41

WPC 18023 of 2016

¶42

¶43

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.F.E.

¶44

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

¶45

case, I deem it appropriate to grant the limited prayer sought by the petitioner.

¶46

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to pay the amounts due to the K.S.F.E. in ten equal monthly instalments commencing from 1^st July, 2016. Needless to say that until the said period is over, further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P3 and P4 shall be deferred. It is made clear that if the petitioner commits default in remitting any of the instalments, Exts.P3 and P4 proceedings can be revived and continued by the authorities concerned.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶49

tgs

¶50

(true copy)

S.Hari Murali v. State of Kerala`

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Hari Murali 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerla Muncipal Corporation Thozhilali We Vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

T.C.Joshy Vs Indian Aluminium Company Ltd.

Quilon Dist.Homeopathic Co-Operative Hos Vs G.Anilkumar

K.S.Sebastian Vs Josekutty

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs v.Reji

C. Gowri Sankaran Vs State of Kerala