Quashed

Kerala Forest Development Corporation Ltd. v. the District Collector

Kerala HC7 Feb 2019WP(C)/93/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a public interest writ petition by the Kerala Forest Development Corporation, the Court quashed a revenue recovery demand notice for interest. The petitioners deposited the principal amount but disagreed with the recovery of interest calculated without crediting that payment. The Court held the notice invalid and allowed deposit of balance interest within six months.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the revenue recovery demand notice dated 31-10-2018 under Section 34 of the RR Act. Petitioners allowed to deposit balance interest within six months.

Kerala Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 18TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 93 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, REGISTERED OFFICE AT ARANYAKOM, KARAPUZHA, KOTTAYAM 686 003.

¶8

2 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, THRISSUR DIVISION, THRISSUR 680 001

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.M.KABANI DINESH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM 686 001

¶12

2 THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, KOTTAYAM TALUK, 686 001.

¶13

3 ADDL.R3 T L MOHAN F/O LATE SREEKANTH MOHAN, THEKKEATTATHU VEEDU,NEAR KANDHACHIRA PALLY, ST.THOMAS NAGAR, MANGAD PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691015.

¶14

4 ADDL.R4 L MARY M/O LATE SREEKANTH MOHAN, THEKKEATTATHU VEEDU,NEAR KANDHACHIRA PALLY, ST.THOMAS NAGAR, MANGAD PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691015.

¶15

5 ADDL.R5 SANDEEP MOHAN B/O LATE SREEKANTH MOHAN, THEKKEATTATHU VEEDU,NEAR KANDHACHIRA PALLY, ST.THOMAS NAGAR, MANGAD PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691015.

¶16

6 ADDL.R6 SREEKALA MOHAN SISTER OF LATE SREEKANTH MOHAN, THEKKEATTATHU VEEDU,NEAR KANDHACHIRA PALLY, ST.THOMAS NAGAR, MANGAD PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691015. (ADDL.R3 TO R6 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 10/01/2019 IN IA.NO.01/2019)

¶17

WP(C).No. 93 of 2019

¶18

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN

¶20

ABRAHAM MATHEW VADAKKEL GP

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C).No. 93 of 2019

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The1st petitioner is a public sector undertaking. The 2^nd petitioner is Divisional Manager of 1^st respondent. The petitioners had a liability based on an order passed by the Employees Compensation Commissioner, Kollam in E.P. 8/18 in ECC 605/2014. The petitioners had deposited principal amount. Petitioners have to pay the interest. The petitioners, approached this Court, aggrieved by recovery proceedings to recover the entire amount through Revenue Recovery Act. The revenue recovery demand notice would show that the credit of the payment of principal amount was not given effect. In that view of the matter, the revenue recovery demand notice has to be accordingly set aside. The petitioners have agreed to deposit the balance amount due within a period of six months. If that be so, the petitioners shall deposit the balance amount due before the Employees Compensation Commissioner within the above period. Fresh demand notice

¶26

can be raised by the Employees Compensation Commissioner, if only the petitioners had failed to deposit the

¶27

WP(C).No. 93 of 2019

¶28

¶29

amount as above. It is made clear that if fresh requisition is

¶30

made, the Commissioner shall calculate the amount due and intimate the Tahsildar concerned.

¶31

The writ petition is disposed by quashing the revenue

¶32

recovery demand notice.

¶33

SAS/07/02/2019

¶34

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶35

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

WP(C).No. 93 of 2019

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 5-10-2017 OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER (INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT) KOLLAM EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 14-03-2018 IN MFA 135/2017 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 30-08-2018 IN EP.NO./2018 IN ECC 605/2018 OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPEMNSATION COMMISSIONER (INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT) KOLLAM EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION IN FORM 24 UNDER SECTION 69 (2) DTD 5-09-2018 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD 27-10-2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 DTD 29-10-2018 (WITH TRANSLATION) EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD 31-102018 UNDER SEC. 34 OF THE RR ACT.

Kerala Forest Development Corporation Ltd. v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala Forest Development Corporation Ltd. v. the District Collector

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

Prof.M.G.George Vs Chinnappan Varghese Kuriakose

The Manager, Edavoor Upper Primary School Vs the State of Kerala

K.K.Surekha Thazhe Valiya Kattil Upper Primary School Assistant, Vs the State of Kerala

Rajan.K.O., Vs Kerala State Beverages (M and M) Corporation Ltd.

M/S Mannarkkad Wines, Vs State of Kerala

K.Sathyan, Vs Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board