Disposed

M.v.Radhakrishnan v. State Bank of India

Kerala HC5 Mar 2019WP(C)/3578/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging recovery proceedings initiated under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, directing the petitioner to pay dues in 12 monthly instalments with capped recovery charges, offering a compromise to avoid lumpsum recovery.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay total dues in 12 equated monthly instalments starting 25.04.2019; recovery charges confined to 1%.

M.v.Radhakrishnan Vs State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3578 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

M.V.RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 66 YEARS

¶8

PROPRIETOR, M/S. APPLIED SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, PLOT NO.225, CHANDRANAGAR P.O, PALAKKAD-678007, RESIDING AT 1A, LORD KRISHNA PRESTIGE, PUTHUR P.O, PALAKKAD-678001.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE BANK OF INDIA MARUTHARODE BRANCH, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, 678001.

¶12

2 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD TALUK,678001.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.AMAL GEORGE, SC, SBI

¶14

R2 BY SMT.VINITHA B.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 3578 of 2019

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging Ext.P2 recovery proceedings initiated under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. No detailed deliberation of the matter is required, since the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, it would suffice, if the petitioner is granted permission to pay the outstanding amount in 12 equated monthly instalments.

¶20

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent bank submitted that more than Rs.38 lakhs is due from the petitioner.

¶21

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and the learned Government Pleader, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to pay the total dues in 12 equated monthly instalments, starting from 25.4.2019 onwards, and on the corresponding date of the succeeding months. Needless to say, if any of the instalment is defaulted, respondent bank will be at liberty to resurrect the proceedings and recover the amount in lump. I also make it clear that, if the petitioner is making the payment

¶22

WP(C).No. 3578 of 2019

¶23

¶24

directly to the bank, the recovery charges shall be confined to 1% of the total amount due.

¶25

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

SD/

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Jm/

WP(C).No. 3578 of 2019

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.12.2018 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶35

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 27.11.2018.

M.v.Radhakrishnan v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.v.Radhakrishnan v. State Bank of India

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

Bijo K Kurian Vs State of Kerala

N.Vijayakumary Vs P.S.Rajiv

Amal A.R. Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Brinda Suresh Vs L.S.Deepa

K.v.Sudin, Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Siddiq Alasserikoodathil Vs Medical Council of India