Disposed

Sherlyalakkandy, v. Special Deputy Tahsildar (R.R)

Kerala HC27 Jan 2020WP(C)/68/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, addressing a writ petition filed by a surety regarding recovery proceedings against his property, allowed a scheme of repayment in twelve monthly instalments. It directed that coercive proceedings be suspended pending this payment, but clarified that the right to approach civil courts for recovery from the principal debtor remains.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to pay dues in 12 monthly instalments; coercive proceedings stayed pending payment; failure to pay reinstates recovery.

Sherlyalakkandy, Vs Special Deputy Tahsildar (R.R) — Kerala HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 7TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.68 OF 2020(G)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHERLY ALAKKANDY, AGED 35 YEARS D/O.KRISHNAN, PATTATHARI HOUSE, PALERI, MAMBA P.O. - 670 611.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), KSFE, KANNUR - 670 001.

¶11

2 THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., KSFE, CHAKKARAKKAL BRANCH, KANNUR - 670 613 REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶12

3 SANEESH P., S/O.GOPALAN, KAITHAKULANGARA HOUSE, KAVODE, KAVODE - 670 622.

¶13

SRI.SALIL NARAYANAN K.A., SC, KSFE LTD. SMT.VINEETHA B., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.68 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:

¶19

“(i) Issue writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction directing the 1^st respondent to take measure to recover the amount from the assets of the 3^rd respondent

¶20

(ii) Issue writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction directing the 1^st respondent not to recover the amount from the property belongs to the petitioner

¶21

(iii) Issue writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P1 & P2 notices as against the petitioner’s property”

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSFE.

¶23

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶24

the petitioner is only a surety in respect of the chitty transactions and that the respondents are proceeding against the property of the petitioner even-though the principal debtor, the 3^rd respondent has landed property.

¶25

A statement has been placed on record on behalf of the 2^nd respondent wherein, it is contended that the 3^rd respondent had priced two chits and availed the price money by pledging the property of the petitioner in the writ petition. It is stated that the amounts due under the prized chits had been released to the 3^rd respondent only on the basis of security offered by the petitioner and that as such, the respondents are

¶26

WP(C).No.68 OF 2020

¶27

¶28

well within their power in proceeding against the secured assets.

¶29

Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that the further prayers sought for in this writ petition cannot be allowed. However, in view of the prayer of financial stringency urged by the petitioner, there will be a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay off the amounts due in the chit transactions in 12 equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be due on 15.02.2020 and the subsequent installments shall be due on the corresponding dates of the subsequent months. In case the petitioner remits the amounts as directed above without default, the coercive proceedings initiated shall be kept in abeyance. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner commits any default in remitting the amounts as directed above by defaulting a single instalment, the petitioner shall lose the benefit of the judgment and the amount shall be payable and the recovery proceedings can continue from the stage at which it is stopped.

¶30

The right of the petitioner to approach appropriate civil courts to recover the amounts from the 3^rd respondent is left open.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

WP(C).No.68 OF 2020

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT AS RRC. NO.2019/796/13 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 25/10/19. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT AS RRC. NO.2019/798/13 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 25/10/19.

¶40

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

Sherlyalakkandy, v. Special Deputy Tahsildar (R.R)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sherlyalakkandy, v. Special Deputy Tahsildar (R.R)

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

P.Y.Peeyoos, Vs Kerala Water Authority

R.Amulya Kiran Vs State of Kerala

Sabna Vs the State of Kerala

Paul V.P. Vs a. Purushothaman

K.O. George, Vs Kerala Water Authority

K.a.Johnson, Vs the Divisional Railway Manager(Works)