Disposed

V.T.Mathew v. District Collector

Kerala HC7 Aug 2017WP(C)/18677/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the revival of revenue recovery proceedings against an agricultural loan borrower who failed to complete a one-time settlement. The court directed the petitioner to pay a specific balance principal sum along with interest and allowable collection charges. It also ordered revenue authorities to refund excessive collection charges collected by the bank.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay balance principal, interest, and collection charges to settle liability; Respondents 1-3 directed to refund excess collection charges to the bank.

V.T.Mathew Vs District Collector — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/16TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 18677 of 2017 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

V.T.MATHEW, AGED 52 YEARS, SON OF THOMAS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT VADAKKAYIL HOUSE, MUKKOOTTU THARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR SMT.PRIYA. H.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, IDUKKI-685 001.

¶11

2. THASILDAR (RR), NEDUMAKADOM, IDUKKI-685 553.

¶12

3. VILLAGE OFFICER, CHAKKUPALLOM, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 509.

¶13

4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, AANA VILASOM BRANCH, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 535.

¶14

5. THE MANAGER (RECOVERY), STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.J.MANURAJ R4 & R5 BY ADVS. SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

WP(C).No. 18677 of 2017 (H)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF ATTACHMENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO. B1-4911/2011 DATED 21/08/2015.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER AND CONSENT LETTER BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 4TH RESPONDENT BANK DATED NIL.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 13/03/2017.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16.03.2017.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28/03/2017.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE PROCEEDINGS VIDE G.O(M.S)NO. 598/16/REVENUE DATED 19/12/2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶33

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶34

W.P.(C).No.18677 of 2017-H.

¶35

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶36

Dated this the 7^th day of August, 2017.

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

The petitioner, who has availed an agricultural loan from the State Bank of India (the bank), has not repaid the loan as agreed. Later, when the bank initiated proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the loan outstanding, the petitioner requested for one time settlement facility and the bank agreed to accept a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- from the petitioner towards the full and final settlement of the liability. The arrangement was that the petitioner should remit the amount on or before 20.05.2016. The petitioner has remitted only a sum of Rs.9,95,000/- pursuant to the said settlement, within the time stipulated. Since the petitioner did not remit the entire amounts covered by the settlement, the revenue recovery proceedings already initiated against the petitioner have been revived. The writ petition was filed at that point of time challenging the said proceedings. The case set up by the petitioner in the writ

¶39

¶40

WP.(C).No.18677/2017-H.

¶41

petition is that he could not pay the entire amount covered by the settlement for reasons beyond his control and that he is prepared to pay the balance amount, if he is given reasonable time.

¶42

On 19.06.2017, when this matter was taken up,

¶43

the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will pay the balance amount in terms of the settlement if he is given time till the end of July, 2017. The learned Standing Counsel for the bank then pointed out that in so far as the petitioner has not remitted the entire amounts covered by the settlement within the time stipulated, he is not entitled to the benefit of the settlement. Alternatively, it was contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the bank that if this Court permits the petitioner to pay the balance amount covered by the settlement, he should be directed to pay interest also for the said amount for the delayed period. It was also pointed by the learned Standing Counsel for the bank that the bank had paid in the meanwhile a sum of Rs.97,463/- towards collection charges for the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner and therefore, if the petitioner is permitted to pay the

¶44

WP.(C).No.18677/2017-H.

¶45

balance amount covered by the settlement, he should be directed to pay the said collection charges also in addition to the interest.

¶46

On 19.06.2017, this Court passed an interim

¶47

order directing the petitioner to pay the balance amount agreed to be paid by the petitioner viz, Rs.6,05,000/- on or before 19.07.2017.

¶48

Today, when this matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the interim order dated 19.07.2017 has been complied with by the petitioner.

¶49

To the specific query from the Court as to the interest charged by the bank at present for loans similar to the

¶50

one provided to the petitioner, the answer of the learned Standing Counsel for the bank was that the present rate of interest is 13%.

¶51

It is seen that after the initiation of the revenue recovery proceedings, the bank had recovered a sum of Rs.19,04,500/- from the petitioner. The collection charges payable by the bank for the said recovery under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules, 1968 is only 1% of

¶52

WP.(C).No.18677/2017-H.

¶53

¶54

the said amount.

¶55

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶56

(i) The petitioner shall pay interest to the bank at the rate of 13% for the sum of Rs.6,05,000/- for the period from 20.05.2016 to the date of payment and 1% for Rs.6,05,000/- to compensate the bank for the collection charges to be incurred by them in respect of the said recovery. If the petitioner remits the aforesaid amounts, the bank shall treat the liability of the petitioner as settled.

¶57

(ii) Respondents 1 to 3 shall refund to the bank the collection charges received in respect of the recovery made from

¶58

the petitioner, after retaining the collection charges for Rs.19,04,500/- at the rate of 1%. The refund shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶59

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶60

Kvs/-

¶61

// true copy //

V.T.Mathew v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.T.Mathew v. District Collector

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

R.Mohandas Vs Padmakumar

Lal Koilparambil Vs State of Kerala

B. Surendradas Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Hakeem Vs the Superintending Engineer

Mony v.Athukuzhy Vs District Collector

P.P.Kannan Vs the Director of Printing