Allowed

Vijayakumar v. Deputy Tahasildar

Kerala HC15 Nov 2016WP(C)/31784/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging recovery proceedings. Instead of quashing the action, the court directed the petitioner to repay the outstanding amount in equated monthly instalments, allowing an application for a one-time settlement scheme if three instalments were paid. Default would permit resurrection of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay outstanding amount in instalments; liberty to apply for one-time settlement scheme after three instalments; reserved proceedings upon default.

Vijayakumar Vs Deputy Tahasildar — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/24TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 31784 of 2016 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.AYYAPPAN PILLAI, AGED 46 YEARS, MEGHA POLYMERS, KURICHILAKODE, KODANAD P.O.- 683544.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.VINOD JABAR

¶9

SRI.P.M.GIRIJAVALLABHAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. DEPUTY THAHASILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU REVENUE RECOVERY, PERUMBAVOOR-683542.

¶12

2. GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶13

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

WP(C).No. 31784 of 2016 (W)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: THE COPY OF THE D & O LICENSE ISSUED BY THE KOOVAPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 2.4.2014. EXHIBIT P2: THE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY KUNNATHUNAD DATED 25.8.2016. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL -----------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶24

W.P.(C)No.31784 of 2016

¶25

Dated this the 15^th day of November, 2016

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Petitioner is the sole proprietor of a SSI unit manufacturing injection molded items and blow molded items under the name and style of Megha Polymers. Petitioner secured margin money from the 2^nd respondent to a tune of Rs.1,18,000/-. According to the petitioner, two instalments towards the margin money was repaid however the rest of the instalments were defaulted. Consequent to which, recovery action is initiated under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. It is thus challenging Ext.P2, petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.

¶28

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

¶29

It is an admitted fact that petitioner secured

¶30

W.P.(C)No.31784 of 2016

¶31

¶32

margin money from the 2^nd respondent, as per the scheme provided for the margin money, petitioner has to repay the same under the circumstances mentioned thereunder. Even according to the petitioner, after payment of two instalments the other amounts were defaulted. Therefore, the action initiated by the 2^nd respondent resorting to the provisions of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in any manner.

¶33

Even though very many contentions are raised in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner is apprehensive of his capacity to repay the amount by paying of the interest sought for by the 2^nd respondent. There will be a direction to the petitioner to pay of the outstanding amount as on toady namely Rs.1,78,190/- in 15 equated monthly instalments starting from 25.11.2016 and on the corresponding date of the succeeding months. If the petitioner makes three instalments continuously as directed above, 2^nd respondent shall receive a representation from the

¶34

W.P.(C)No.31784 of 2016

¶35

¶36

petitioner with respect to the interest portion and consider the same by applying any one time settlement scheme if available and take a decision. However, filing of the representation will not in any manner inure to the benefit of the petitioner from making the payment as directed above. Needless to say, if any of the instalments is defaulted respondent will be at liberty to resurrect proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 and recover the amount in lump. A statement of account shall also be provided by the 2^nd respondent to the petitioner to make the payment within two weeks.

¶37

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶38

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶39

rmm/17/11/2016

¶40

[ True copy]

¶41

P.A. to Judge

Vijayakumar v. Deputy Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakumar v. Deputy Tahasildar

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

Bigeesh Varghese Vs the Daimler Finance Ltd.

N.Viswambharan Vs the Deputy Tahsildar

Kunjannamma N. Vs State of Kerala

Shakeena Mansoor Vs Passport Authority of India

P. Sreedharan Vs State of Kerala

Mayaveeran Vs M/S Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.