Allowed

Gurudeva Rice and Agro Products Private Limited, v. the Kerala Financial Corporation

Kerala HC10 Feb 2020WP(C)/1925/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner company sought a writ directing respondents to issue a no objection certificate for accepting only 1% revenue recovery charge instead of the demanded 7.5%. The court held that since the dues were cleared via a mutual settlement in an Adalath rather than formal revenue recovery proceedings, the higher charge was illegal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to issue a no objection certificate to the petitioner by accepting 1% of the amount due as recovery charges.

Gurudeva Rice and Agro Products Private Limited, Vs the… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 21ST MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.1925 OF 2020(M)

¶6

PETITIONER :-

¶7

GURUDEVA RICE AND AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SOUTH VELLARAPPALLY P.O. SREEMOOLANAGARAM, KALADY, ERNAKULAM - 683 580, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.V.ULLAS, MATHOLIL HOUSE, OKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 550.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.MEREENA J. JOSEPH

¶9

RESPONDENTS :-

¶10

1 THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, VELLAYAMBALAM, PMG JN P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶11

2 CHIEF MANAGER THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, SNDP BUILDINGS, PP ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR BRANCH, RAYONPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 543.

¶12

3 THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, PERUMBAVOOR BRANCH, RAYONPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 543.

¶13

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 030.

¶14

5 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KALOOR P.O. ERNAKULAM - 682 017.

¶15

BY SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, GP BY SRI.BASANT BALAJI, SC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.1925 OF 2020(M)

¶18

-: 2 :-

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 10th day of February 2020

¶21

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

¶22

“(i) Call for the entire records pertaining to the facts pleaded in the writ petition (civil).

¶23

(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, any other Writ, Order or direction, directing the respondents herein to issue no objection certificate to the petitioner, by accepting 1% of Revenue Recovery Commission alone.

¶24

(iii) Declare that the respondents are entitled to claim only 1% of the Revenue Recovery Commission from the petitioner, as collection of arrears from the petitioner is not made through the procedures under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act 1968 or Rules thereunder.”

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶26

learned Government Pleader.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, a private limited company, had supplied rice to the Kerala State Co-operative Consumer Federation Limited (for short, 'the Consumerfed') and that since the Consumerfed had not paid the amounts due to the petitioner Company, the petitioner could not pay the dues to the 3^rd respondent, the Kerala Financial Corporation. Thereafter, by Ext.P1, the petitioner was permitted to settle the amounts due to the 3^rd respondent as per the decision taken in the Adalath. It is stated that the petitioner complied with

¶28

WP(C).No.1925 OF 2020(M)

¶29

-: 3 :-

¶30

the terms of Ext.P1 and closed the loan. However, the direction in Ext.P3 to collect only 1% of the amount due as revenue recovery commission has been flouted by the respondents and 7.5% of the amount due is being demanded as commission. The learned counsel relies on Ext.P6 judgment and other judgments of this Court to contend that where amounts are settled directly between the defaulter and the requisitioning authority, collection charges have to be limited to 1% of the amount demanded and the imposition of collection charges at the rate of 7.5%, which is applicable only if the amounts are realised through the revenue recovery proceedings, is completely illegal. In the instant case, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire exercise was on agreement between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent and that the amounts had been paid directly to the 3^rd respondent and not through the recovery proceedings. It is therefore contended that Ext.P6 judgment, which has been upheld in appeal clearly covers the issue and that only 1% collection charges is liable to be levied.

¶31

Having considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader, I find that in view of the fact that it is not in dispute that the amounts had been cleared on the basis of a

¶32

WP(C).No.1925 OF 2020(M)

¶33

-: 4 :-

¶34

settlement arrived at between the parties in an Adalath and not through revenue recovery proceedings, the respondents are liable to issue a no objection certificate to the petitioner by accepting 1% of the amounts demanded as revenue recovery charges. There will, accordingly, be a direction to the respondents to issue no objection certificate to the petitioner with respect to the property in question by accepting 1% of the amount due alone as recovery charges.

¶35

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶36

Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶37

Jvt/12.2.2020

¶38

WP(C).No.1925 OF 2020(M)

¶39

-: 5 :-

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 10.1.2020.	INTIMATION LETTER ISSUED BY TO THE PETITIONER DATED
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE 13/01/2020.	LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE 17/01/2020.	LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD 5TH RESPONDENT DATED
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 1	LETTER OF CLARIFICATION RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH 7/01/2020.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE 18/01/2020.	LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD 5TH RESPONDENT DATED
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE 36827 OF 2017 AND 23.3.2018.	COMMON JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. WPC N. 8784 OF 2018 DATED

¶43

//TRUE COPY//

¶44

P.A. TO JUDGE

Gurudeva Rice and Agro Products Private Limited, v. the Kerala Financial Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurudeva Rice and Agro Products Private Limited, v. the Kerala Financial Corporation

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

M.M.Philip, Vs District Supply Officer

Sini Shibu Vs the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr), Vaikom Taluk

N.P.Sajeev Mohan Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

K.P.Varghese, Vs Government of Kerala

Sakeer Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep S., Vs the State of Kerala