Partly allowed

Nalini E.K v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Dec 2017WP(C)/24536/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a defaulter in chit transactions, filed a writ petition seeking extension of an expired One Time Settlement Scheme and a breathing time to clear dues. The Court noted the scheme expired on 31.3.2017 but permitted petitioner to clear dues in four equal monthly instalments, suspending recovery proceedings for compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to clear dues in four equal monthly instalments; recovery proceedings kept in abeyance upon timely remittance.

Nalini E.K Vs the State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 24536 of 2017 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NALINI E.K AGED 58, W/O. KARUMATHIL VIJAYAN, PATTURAIKAL AMSOM DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THIRSSUR TALUK, THRISSUR - 1.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA

¶11

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECERTARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

2. THE THRISSUR DISTRICT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY NO. R- 38 CORPORATION OFFICE COMPOUND, P.B.NO.46, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR - 680 001.

¶13

3. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER KURIACHIRA SCB GROUP, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680 003.

¶14

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. MABLE C KURIAN R2 BY ADVS. SRI.A.D.RAVINDRA PRASAD SRI.ALEX THALODY

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sdr/-

¶17

WP(C).No. 24536 of 2017 (N)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO. 7 NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER AT THE INSTANCE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 09.6.2017.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED IN FORM NO.2 DATED 20.4.2017.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION PROVIDED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 27.5.2017.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 03.2.2017.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

sdr/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

¶29

W.P(C) No.24536 of 2017

¶30

Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2017

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner, who is a defaulter in respect of various chit transactions with the second respondent Co-operative Society, is before this Court in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to extend the benefit of Ext.P4 to the case of the petitioner, so as to enable her to liquidate the liability covered by Ext.P3 communication of the 2^nd respondent dated 27.5.2017.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for the 1^st respondent and also the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

¶34

The fact that the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner are in respect of eight awards passed by the Arbitrator in A.R.C.Nos.3729, 3732, 3735, 3730, 3734, 3731, 3723 and 3724 of 2010, which pertains to eight chit transactions the petitioner had with the second respondent, is not in dispute.

¶35

W.P(C) No.24536 of 2017

¶36

:-2-:

¶37

It is also not in dispute that those awards have attained finality.

¶38

In order to liquidate the said liability, the petitioner wants to avail the One Time Settlement Scheme namely “Navakeraleeyam Kudissika Nivaranam 2017”. To recover the amount due from the petitioner, Ext.P1 series attachment notices dated 9.6.2017 were issued by the first respondent under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, which were in continuation of Ext.P2 series demand notices dated 20.4.2017. The petitioner sought for the details as to her liability, which were provided by the second respondent vide Ext.P3 communication dated 27.5.2017. As per Ext.P3 the total liability comes to 41,23,465/-.₹

¶39

The third respondent issued Ext.P4 series communications dated 3.2.2017 informing the petitioner that if she wants to clear the dues under the One Time Settlement Scheme, she has to appear before the Bank on 23.2.2017. The liability shown in Ext.P4 series comes to 4,38,743/-, 7,19,527/-,₹ ₹ ₹10,38,855/-, 3,61,225/-, 7,89,360/-, 3,46,201/- and 2,96,492/-₹ ₹ ₹ ₹ respectively. The petitioner was also informed that the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme is available till 31.3.2017. By Ext.P4(8) notice dated 3.2.2017 the petitioner was also informed

¶40

W.P(C) No.24536 of 2017

¶41

:-3-:

¶42

that the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme is available only till 31.3.2017. Now, in this Writ Petition filed on 24.7.2017, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to extend the benefit of the One Time Settlement Scheme for clearing the liabilities covered by Ext.P2 series demand notices.

¶43

Admittedly, the benefit of the One Time Settlement Scheme was available to defaulters only upto 31.3.2017. Despite issuance of Ext.P4 series of notices, the petitioner has not chosen to clear the liability by availing the benefit under the said scheme. On 24.7.2017, much after the expiry of the One Time Settlement Scheme, the petitioner has approached this Court in this Writ Petition seeking an order to extend the benefit of the said scheme. Since the validity of the scheme has already expired on 31.3.2017, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in this Writ Petition.

¶44

Then, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner may be granted a breathing time to clear the entire dues covered by Ext.P2 series of demand notices.

¶45

The pleadings and the materials on records would show that the petitioner was having eight chit transactions with

¶46

W.P(C) No.24536 of 2017 :-4-:

¶47

the second respondent Bank. Despite the award passed by the Arbitrator, she has not chosen to make any payment.

¶48

Considering the rival submissions, the petitioner is permitted to clear the entire dues mentioned in Ext.P2 series of demand notices in four equal monthly instalments, commencing from 29.12.2017 and the subsequent instalments payable on or before the 29^th day of the succeeding months. If the petitioner is remitting the aforesaid instalments in time, the second and third respondents shall keep in abeyance all recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 and P2 series, so as to enable her to pay off the entire liability. It is made clear that, in case of any default committed by the petitioner in remitting any one of the aforesaid instalments, it would be open to respondents 2 and 3 to proceed with the recovery proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 series of notices.

¶49

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶50

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶51

//True Copy//

¶52

P.A to Judge

¶53

Nalini E.K v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalini E.K v. the State of Kerala

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

Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. Vs Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.

C.Balakrishnan Vs Kasaragode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

A.Unnikrishnan Vs the Nilambur Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

Muhamed Ashraf K.G. Vs Reliance General Insurance

Babu N.K. Vs the Chorode Co-Operative Bank

Venjramood Serviceco-Oprative Bank Ltd. No. 2419 Vs the Controlling Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act