Disposed

C.R.Narayana Das v. the Tahsildar, Mukundapuram

Kerala HC13 Sept 2017WP(C)/5441/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the petitioners plea for reduction of interest and collection charges in a case involving recovery of Industrial Tribunal award amounts. The petitioner was granted three months to settle the balance dues, after which recovery would stop.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted three months' time to settle the balance dues of Rs.1,68,130/-; upon settlement, no further recovery proceedings needed.

C.R.Narayana Das Vs the Tahsildar, Mukundapuram — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/22ND BHADRA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 5441 of 2014 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. C.R.NARAYANA DAS

¶8

S/O.C.G.RAMAN, RESIDING AT ARAMANA, PALAZHI P.O, PUTHUKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, MANAGING PARTNER, SREE KALEESWARI TILE WORKS, PUTHUKKAD, THRISSUR.

¶9

*** ADDL P2 IMPLEADED**

¶10

2. C.R. LAKSHMANAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O C.G.RAMAN, RESIDING AT CHAKKUNGATHODIYIL HOUSE, 30/195 SABARI, SIVA TEMPLE LANE, POOMKUNNAM, THRISSUR.

¶11

*** ADDL P2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.7.2017 IN IA NO.9869/2017 IN WPC 5441/2014.**

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA SRI.K.D.SREEVISAKH SMT.VINAYA V.NAIR

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. THE TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR 680 001.

¶15

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR 680 001.

¶16

3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER 1, SALES TAX OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR 680 121.

¶17

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUTHUKKAD, THRISSUR 680 001.

¶18

5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHUKKAD 680 001.

¶19

WP(C).No. 5441 of 2014 (E)

¶20

ADDL R6, R7 IMPLEADED 6. C.L.ROSY, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O THOMAS, VADAKKUDOM HOUSE, THORAVU SOUTH PUDUKKAD P.O, THOROAVU VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR 680 3301. 7. K.B THOUKRMONI, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O SANKUNNY, KANNOLU HOUSE, PALAZHI P.O, PUDUKKAD NANMANIKKARA VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR 680 3301. * ADDL R6, R7 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11/3/2014 IN IA NO.3497/2014

¶21

*** ADDL R8 IMPLEADED 8. MR. VENU, S/O KOZHAMPURATH GOPALAN, VADAKKETHORAVU, PUDUKKAD,THRISSUR 680 301. * ADDL R8 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 8/4/2014 IN IA NO.4563/2014.**

¶22

*** ADDL R9, R10 IMPLEADED 9. MR. C.R.KRISHNA MOHAN, S/O LATE C.G.RAMAN, RESIDING AT HEAVENLY VILLAS, KUTTUR,THRISSUR. 10.C.N DILKUMAR, S/O CHAKKUNGATHODIYIL NARAYANAN, PUDUKKAD DESOM, THORAVU VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR 680 3301.**

¶23

*** ADDL R9,R10 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18/8/2014 IN IA NO 11212/2014. R1-R5 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI N.MANOJ R6,R7 BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**

¶24

K.V.

¶25

WP(C).No. 5441 of 2014 (E)

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶28

EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 17.05.08 IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO.21 OF 2007.

¶29

EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CI OF POLICE PUDUKKAD, 2007.

¶30

EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.02.2014 BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT 2007.

¶32

EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.02.2014 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT 2007.

¶33

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. NO 415/06 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA DATED 30/9/06.

¶34

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION HAS BEEN FILED E.A. IN EP 77/07 IN OS 415/06 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA.

¶35

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶36

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

¶37

/TRUE COPY/

¶38

K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE

¶39

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶40

----------------------------------

¶41

W.P(C). No.5441 of 2014 [E]

¶42

---------------------------------Dated this the 13^th day of September, 2017

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

The petitioner is aggrieved by the revenue recovery steps taken for satisfaction of the amounts awarded as per Ext.P1. Ext.P1 is an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad.

¶45

The petitioner submits that the amount awarded was Rs.8,09,000/-, which due to default had risen up to Rs.22 lakhs. An amount of Rs.10,50,000/- was paid in accordance with the interim order passed by this Court and again Rs.11 lakhs, voluntarily, last month. The petitioner prays that some indulgence may be

¶46

W.P(C). No.5441 of 2014 [E]

¶47

¶48

shown in so far as reducing the interest and collection charges. It is also submitted that the 1^st petitioner, who was the employer, is now rendered immobile due to paralysis and the 2^nd petitioner, brother, has paid up the amounts from his retirement benefits.

¶49

The learned Special Government Pleader appears and contends that there can be no reduction of interest since it is not within the authority of the Government, especially since the dues had to be settled to the workmen of the petitioner. As to the collection charges, it is submitted that there was a sale conducted of the property, which was by an interim order, kept in abeyance with a condition of deposit of Rs.10,50,000/-. In the circumstances of the State having proceeded with the recovery and expended considerable

¶50

W.P(C). No.5441 of 2014 [E]

¶51

¶52

time and expenses, there can be no reduction of the collection charges also.

¶53

Considering the entire facts and

¶54

circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant any such concession to the petitioner.

¶55

The balance amount stated to be pending is Rs.1,68,130/-. The petitioner would be granted three months' time to settle the entire dues and on such settlement, no further recovery need be proceeded. The payment if made within the three months' period will be considered satisfaction of the entire dues under Ext.P1 and also the collection charges.

¶56

The above writ petition is disposed of.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶59

//True Copy//

¶60

P.A. to Judge

¶61

sp/13/09/17

C.R.Narayana Das v. the Tahsildar, Mukundapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.R.Narayana Das v. the Tahsildar, Mukundapuram

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

Indu M.S Vs Lekha C. Nair @ S. Lekha

Binu Abraham @ Binu Kuriakose Vs State of Kerala

Jobby Paul Vs the Kattoor Grama Panchayath

Sumathi Vs the District Employment Officer

Royson Joseph Vs M/S.Shriram Transport Finance

B.P. Bijesh Vs State of Kerala