Allowed

P. Mohan Kumar v. the District Collector, Pathanamthitta

Kerala HC11 Jun 2018WP(C)/16454/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ to stop recovery proceedings against his property for a loan taken by his wife. Court allowed petition, directing respondents not to proceed against petitioner’s personal properties as he incurred no liability, leaving the bank liberty to pursue wife’s assets.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents not to proceed against the petitioner's personal properties.

P. Mohan Kumar Vs the District Collector, Pathanamthitta — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 16454 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.MOHAN KUMAR, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O LATE PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, PARVATHI MANDIRAM. VELLAPPARA.P.O, V-KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PIN:689 691

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.V.SETHUNATH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN:689 645

¶11

2. THE THASILDAR, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PIN:689 691.

¶12

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, V-KOTTAYAM. PIN:689 656

¶13

4. KERALA GRAMIN BANK, KONNI BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, KONNI. PIN:689 691.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VINITHA.B. R4 BY SRI.T.R.RAVI, SC,

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts 12/6/2018

¶17

WP(C).No. 16454 of 2018 (F)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN O.S.NO.590/2017 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts 12/6/2018

SHAJI P.CHALY, J.

¶26

======================== W.P.(C) No.16454 of 2018

¶27

======================== Dated this the 11^th day of June 2018

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

¶30

“1) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents 1 to 4, not to proceed against the petitioner's property comprised in Survey No.394/16 of V-Kottayam village.

¶31

1. To declare that respondents 1 to 4 have no authority/right to proceed against the petitioner's property comprised in survey No.394/16 of V-Kottayam Village for the loan availed by his wife.”

¶32

In accordance with the tenor and terms of the pleadings, what I could gather is that the wife of the petitioner has secured a loan from the 4^th respondent bank showing the details of the properties of the petitioner. However, it is undisputed that petitioner has not executed any mortgage in favour of the 4^th respondent bank or created any sort of encumbrance enabling the 4^th respondent to proceed against the said property.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.16454 of 2018 2

¶34

However, by virtue of the details contained under the loan application, the 4^th respondent bank initiated recovery proceedings and the property of the petitioner is being proceeded with illegally. It is thus seeking to quash the recovery action against the property of the petitioner, this writ petition is filed.

¶35

According to the petitioner, revenue authorities have gone to the residential property of the petitioner with the intention of attaching the same. Since the petitioner has not created any sort of liability, on account of the loan secured by the wife, property of the petitioner shall not be proceeded with.

¶36

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent bank.

¶37

It is an admitted fact that petitioner has not created any manner of liability in favour of the 4^th respondent bank on account of the loan secured by the wife. That being the situation, no action can be initiated against the property of the petitioner. Therefore, leaving open the liberty of the 4^th respondent bank to proceed against any property of the wife of the petitioner, this writ petition is allowed directing the respondents, not to proceed

¶38

W.P.(C) No.16454 of 2018

¶39

¶40

against the personal properties of the petitioner.

¶41

Sd/

¶42

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

¶43

jm/ \True copy\

¶44

PA to Judge

P. Mohan Kumar v. the District Collector, Pathanamthitta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Mohan Kumar v. the District Collector, Pathanamthitta

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

A.R.Rajaesh Vs the Additional District Magistrate

Dominic a Vs Kerala Water Authority

Dominic a Vs Kerala Water Authority

The Manager High School Thiruvalayannar Vs the Deputy Tahsildar

Syamala Vs the State of Kerala

Janeesh K. Vs the District Supply Officer