Partly allowed

Boben Joseph v. Deputy Tahsildar (R.R)

Kerala HC26 Feb 2016WP(C)/4122/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging loan recovery steps by a bank and revenue authorities. The court allowed the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount in ten monthly installments, keeping recovery proceedings in abeyance during repayment.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings kept in abeyance if petitioner remits outstanding amount of Rs.12,01,230/- with interest in ten equal monthly installments commencing from 10.03.2016.

Boben Joseph Vs Deputy Tahsildar (R.R) — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/7TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 4122 of 2016 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

BOBEN JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, M/S.EVERGREEN DISTRIBUTORS, VYAPARA BHAVAN, M.I.ROAD, KOTTAYAM, NOW R/AT KUZHIYANKALAYIL HOUSE, PERUMBAIKODU P.O, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.N.MAHESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM 686 001.

¶11

2. THE MANAGER,

¶12

BANK OF INDIA, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001.

¶13

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY K.T. R2 BY SRI.J.HARIKUMAR, SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 4122 of 2016 (M)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 13.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶20

P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND PRIOR TO ATTACHMENT OF LAND UNDER SECTION 34 OF REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 13.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶27

W.P.(C). No. 4122 of 2016

¶28

Dated this the 26^th day of February, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner, who had availed of a loan from the respondent bank, defaulted in repayment of the same. Consequently, the respondent bank initiated proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, to recover the loan amounts. Exts.P1 and P2 are the revenue recovery notices issued to the petitioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns the steps initiated by the respondent bank for recovery of the loan amounts.

¶31

I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶32

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I note that the sole prayer of the petitioner is to permit him to remit the balance amounts outstanding to the bank in easy installments. Taking into account the plea of financial hardship raised by the petitioner, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:-

¶33

-2-

¶34

W.P.(C). No. 4122 of 2016

¶35

(i) The total outstanding amount, in respect of the loan as on today is stated to be Rs.12,01,230/together with accrued interest. Accordingly, if the petitioner remits the aforesaid amount of Rs.12,01,230/- together with accrued interest and other charges in ten equal and successive monthly installments commencing from 10.03.2016, then the recovery steps initiated against him by the respondent bank shall be kept in abeyance.

¶36

(ii) It is made clear that if the petitioner commits a default in respect of any of the installments, he will lose the benefit of this judgment and the respondent bank will be free to continue the recovery proceedings against him from the stage at which they presently stand.

¶37

(iii) The respondent bank shall, within ten days from today, provide the petitioner with an upto-date statement of accounts so as to enable the petitioner to discharge the liability in accordance with the directions of this judgment.

¶38

Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶39

das /26.02.2016

Boben Joseph v. Deputy Tahsildar (R.R)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boben Joseph v. Deputy Tahsildar (R.R)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Shanmughan Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Joshy a.Chemparathy Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Thodupuzha

Jabbarkutty Vs the Manager, Sbi, Karunagappally Branch

Sumathi Amma Kalpana Vs the State of Kerala

Renju Sebastian Vs Banking Ombudsman, Tvm

Aboobacker P Vs Federal Bank Ltd.