Disposed

Shyja.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Apr 2018WP(C)/5195/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging coercive recovery action by KSFE. Instead of a legal ruling on the legality of the action, the Court permitted the petitioner to pay an interim amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- under an OTS scheme within a week and set a deadline for the balance payment, allowing further recovery proceedings only upon default.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is permitted to pay Rs. 12,00,000/- within one week and the balance amount by 15.5.2018 under the OTS scheme; recovery proceedings are stayed subject to compliance.

Shyja.P Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 5195 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SHYJA.P W/O. GIREESH P.P, AGED 31, PUTHENPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, KODANCHERRI P.O, PURAMERI VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV.SMT.C.LEENA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶11

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR [REVENUE RECOVERY] K.S.F.E LTD, KALLAYI ROAD, KOZHIKODE.-673002

¶12

3. THE MANAGER OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, K.S.F.E LTD, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673002.

¶13

4. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KALLACHI BRANCH, KOZHIKODE.673002

¶14

5. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD CORPORATE OFFICE, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.-680001

¶15

6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER PURAMERI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.-673001

¶16

R4& R5 BY SRI.P.C.ANIL KUMAR, SC, KSFE LTD. SRI.SALIL NARAYANAN K.A., SC, KSFE LTD.

¶17

R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 5195 of 2018 (Y)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXHIBIT P1.	COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 30.1.18 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2.	COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING RRC NO.C5-2014/52261/11 DATED 29.10.14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2[A].	COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING RRC NO.C5-2014/52262/11 DATED 30.10.14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2[B].	COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING RRC NO.C5-2014/52263/11 DATED 30.10.14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2[C].	COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING RRC NO.C5-2014/52264/11 DATED 30.10.14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2[D].	COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING RRC NO.C5-2014/58892/11 DATED 6.12.14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2[E].	COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING RRC NO.C5-2014/58894/11 DATED 6.12.14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2[F].	COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING RRC NO.C5-2014/58895/11 DATED 6.12.14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3.	COPY OF TEH REPRESENTATION DATED 1.2.18 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH A COPY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHI	BITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk/5/4/18

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

W.P.(C). No. 5195 of 2018

¶28

Dated this the 5^th day of April, 2018

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

According to the petitioner, petitioner's husband, who is

¶31

deserted the petitioner, has availed 3 chitty loans and is a

¶32

subscriber to 4 chitties conducted by the KSFE, Kozhikode Unit.

¶33

Properties of the petitioner's husband was mortgaged for

¶34

release of the loan amount as well as prized chitties. According

¶35

to the petitioner petitioner is residing in the residential building

¶36

in the property offered as mortgage. Consequent to the non-

¶37

payment by the husband of the petitioner, recovery action is initiated under the provisions of the KRR Act. It is thus

¶38

challenging the coercive action and seeking other consequential

¶39

reliefs, this writ petition is filed.

¶40

Even though petitioner has submitted Ext.P3

¶41

W.P.(C). No. 5195 of 2018

¶42

¶43

representation, the same is not considered by the respondents.

¶44

These are the backgrounds projected by the petitioner in this

¶45

writ petitioner.

¶46

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶47

senior Government Pleader as well as learned standing counsel

¶48

for the KSFE.

¶49

Even though various contentions are raised with

¶50

respect to the illegality in the coercive action, today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶51

that an OTS scheme is offered by the KSFE to the petitioner, by

¶52

which, the petitioner is liable to pay only an amount of Rs.20,85,341/- against a total due amount of Rs.24,66,128/-.

¶53

According to the petitioner, petitioner is unable to pay the said

¶54

amount under the OTS in lump sum. However, the petitioner is

¶55

prepared to pay an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- forth with.

¶56

W.P.(C). No. 5195 of 2018

¶57

¶58

Therefore, petitioner is permitted to pay an amount of

¶59

Rs.12,00,000/- within a week from the date of receipt of a copy

¶60

of this judgment. For the payment of balance amount under the

¶61

OTS along with accrued interest or cost, if any, the petitioner is

¶62

given time up to 15.5.2018.

¶63

Needless to say, if the petitioner is not complying

¶64

with any of the directives, respondents will be at liberty to

¶65

proceed in accordance with law, and recover the amount in

¶66

lump.

¶67

If the recovery charges are not included in the OTS

¶68

amount specified above, the recovery charges shall be confined

¶69

to 1% of the amount deposited by the petitioner.

¶70

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶71

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶72

Sd/-

¶73

dlk/5/4/

Shyja.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyja.P v. 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

M/Snavin Constructions Corporation Vs Shinamol

Louin M.O Vs Union of India

Lijey B.K. Vs Superintendent, Kozhikode Medical College Hospital

Paulose Abraham Vs Kerala Water Authority

Kollam Labour Contract Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

C.Narayanan Vs the Village Officer, Shornur - II