The High Court allowed this writ petition wherein petitioners challenged revenue recovery proceedings initiated by Syndicate Bank. Ruling that the loan claim was time-barred due to lack of acknowledgment in the lawyer's notice, the proceedings were quashed.
The writ petition was allowed and the impugned revenue recovery proceedings were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2017/2ND ASHADHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 1941 of 2017 (T)
PETITIONER(S):
1. VINITHA V.N. AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.P.A.NARAYANAN, VELEEPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTHIATHODU-688533.
2. P.A.NARAYANAN
AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.APPU, VELEEPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTHIATHODU-688533.
BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688524.
2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER KUTHIATHODU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688533.
3. THE SYNDICATE BANK ALLEPPEY BRANCH, IRON BRIDGE P.O.-688011,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
R1: BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, K.J. MANURAJ. R2: BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, K.J. MANURAJ. R3: BY SRI.R.S. KALKURA, SC, SYNDICATE BANK.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DXY
WP(C).No. 1941 of 2017 (T)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13-10-2010 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
\TRUE COPY\
PA TO JUDGE
DXY
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.1941 of 2017-P.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2017.
J U D G M E N T
The case of the petitioners is that revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated at the instance of the third respondent Bank for realisation of the balance outstanding in
the account of a loan availed by them which is time barred.
W.P.(C).No.1941/2017-P.
Revenue Recovery Act only on 26.11.2016. In the circumstances, it is established by the petitioners that the claim is barred by limitation. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed.
Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Kvs/-
// true copy //
2 issues framed by the court
Whether revenue recovery proceedings initiated under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, are maintainable when the claim by the bank is time-barred.
Whether the issuance of a lawyer's notice without acknowledgment of debt bars the passage of limitation.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vinitha V.N. and P.A. Narayanan
The Deputy Tahsildar (RR) Taluk Office, Cherthala
The Village Officer Kuthiathodu Village
The Syndicate Bank Alleppey Branch
P.B.Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
