Disposed

Manoj Babu v. Deputy Tahasildar (Revenue Recovery)

Kerala HC3 Nov 2017WP(C)/34059/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding Revenue Recovery proceedings, the High Court of Kerala granted a stay on recovery steps. The petitioner was directed to repay dues in monthly installments with interest to make the proceedings unenforceable.

What did the court decide?

Stay of recovery proceedings granted. Petitioner directed to repay dues in monthly instalments with interest to suspend enforcement.

Manoj Babu Vs Deputy Tahasildar (Revenue Recovery) — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/12TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 34059 of 2017 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

MANOJ BABU, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.BABU E.K., KIZHAKKETHALKKAL HOUSE, MANJUMALA, THENGAKKAL, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 533.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), PEERMADE TALUK OFFICE, PEERMADE, IDUKKI (DT)-685 531.

¶11

2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHENKARA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, CHENKARA P.O., IDUKKI (DT)-685 531.

¶12

R1 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA R2 BY SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR,SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

WP(C).No. 34059 of 2017 (F)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1- COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20/05/17 UNDER 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶19

EXHIBIT P2- COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20/05/17 UNDER 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶20

EXHIBIT P3- COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22/05/17 UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 34059 of 2017 (F)

¶28

-----------------------------------------Dated: 03^rd November, 2017

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner is aggrieved with the Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank.

¶31

The petitioner submits that the loans are not under priority sector and, hence, there could be no Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated for recovery. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that both the loans are agricultural loans: one, a Kisan loan and the other an agricultural term loan, which comes under the priority sector. Then, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the term loan could be regularised for

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 34059/2017

¶33

-2-

¶34

reason of it having a long term of ten years. The learned Standing Counsel however, would contend that no regularisation is possible since the loan itself was for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and, as of now, there is an amount due of Rs.8,20,000/-. The Kisan Loan is outstanding by Rs.1,53,000/-.

¶35

In such circumstance, the petitioner will have to pay the entire amounts in twelve monthly instalments starting from 03.12.2017 and continued on the 3^rd of the successive months with payment of interest, every three months, as accruing in both the accounts. The recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance on condition that the remittances as per this order are made without any default. On the petitioner making two defaults in repaying the installments, the recovery steps initiated shall revive and continue. On the petitioners satisfying

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 34059/2017

¶37

-3-

¶38

the entire arrears, the recovery proceedings shall be unenforceable.

¶39

The writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.

¶40

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶41

jjj 3/11/17

Manoj Babu v. Deputy Tahasildar (Revenue Recovery)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Babu v. Deputy Tahasildar (Revenue Recovery)

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

Rosamma Vs District Collector

Reena Bobby Vs All India Counsel for the Technical Education

Krishnankutty Eacheran Vs Inspector General of Registrations

M.M.Thomas Vs State of Kerala

N.K.Muhammed Aslam Vs the Regional Officer Central Board of Secondary Education

Kum.Shiya Vs State of Kerala