Disposed

Rajani v. the District Collector, Thrissur

Kerala HC31 Oct 2016WP(C)/3037/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition complaining that Agricultural Debt Waiver benefits were not applied. The petitioners sought removal of 5% revenue recovery charges from a settlement amount. The court held the full 5% charge arbitrary given the limited actions taken and directed the bank to reduce it to 2%.

What did the court decide?

The bank was directed to alter the demand notice to limit revenue recovery charges from 5% to 2%.

Rajani 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 SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/9TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 3037 of 2016 (D)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. RAJANI W/O MURALI, KANNAMPULLY HOUSE, PATTIKARA PO, CHIRANELLUR, TRICHUR

¶8

2. MURALI S/O BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KANNAMPULLY HOUSE, PATTIKARA PO, CHIRANELLUR , TRICHUR

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.DINNY THOMAS SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR SRI.ALBERT V.JOHN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR-680 001

¶12

2. GENERAL MANAGER (GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OFFICER UNDER DEBT RELIEF SCHEME, 2008) STATE BANK OF INDIA LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, S.S. KOVIL ROAD, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶13

3. STATE BANK OF INDIA CHOWANNUR BRANCH , THRISSUR-680 53 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶14

4. GENERAL MANAGER RESERVE BANK OF INDIA BAKERY JUNCTION SERVICE ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 033

¶15

R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC, SBI SMT.S.AMBILY

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 3037 of 2016 (D)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DBT WAIVER SCHEME, 2008 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER R.R. ACT DATED 18.12.2014

¶21

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER R.R.ACT DATED 18.12.2014 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER R.R.ACT DATED 18.12.2014 EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 9/1/15 EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 6640/15 DT. 1/7/15 EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT., 26/10/15 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶23

EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN SANCTION LETTER DATED 20.09.2013 THE TERMS OF WHICH WERE DULY ACCEPTED BY THE PETITIONERS EXT.R2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF SANCTION DULY ACCEPTED BY THE PETITIONERS EXT.R2(c): TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF LOAN BEARING NO. 10531243300 EXT.R2(d): TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF LOAN BEARING NO. 10531243297

¶24

WP(C).No. 3037 of 2016 (D)

¶25

EXT.R2(e): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE STATUTORY BRANCH AUDITORS AND KEPT WITH THE LIST OF CLAIM AS PER AGRICULTURAL DEBT WAIVER AND DEBT RELIEF SCHEME 2008

¶26

EXT.R2(f): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS ALONG WITH ENDORSEMENT OF ACCEPTANCE BY THE RESPONDENTS.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶31

W.P.(C). NO. 3037 OF 2016

¶32

Dated this the 31^st day of October, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners complaining

¶35

that the benefit of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 was not applied to the petitioners. During the pendency of this writ petition, petitioners have settled the issue with the bank and accordingly, Ext. P9 is drawn which is dated 28.09.2016, by which the petitioners are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,55,531/- on or before 31.10.2016. However, an amount of Rs. 8,633/- is included, towards 5% revenue recovery charges. According to the petitioners, since the petitioners propose to deposit the amount directly to the bank, the said charges is to be removed. However, I find that revenue recovery notices under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, is issued by the revenue recovery authorities.

¶36

In my considered opinion, charging 5% towards

¶37

W.P.(C). NO. 3037 OF 2016 2

¶38

revenue recovery charges is arbitrary for the reason that there is no further action apart from issuing the notices under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore, the revenue recovery charges is limited to 2% of the amount and accordingly, the bank should make necessary alteration in Ext.P9.

¶39

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶40

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶41

DCS

Rajani v. the District Collector, Thrissur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajani 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roland Vs Sajeev

Top Constructions Vs Superintending Engineer

Ajith Spices Vs Cochin Port Trust

Parakottil Kerosone Agencies Vs Secy. to Govt.

Commonwealth Trust (India) Ltd. Vs a. Harimohan

Snehanikethan Foundling Home Vs Union of India