Partly allowed

Sini Shibu v. the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr), Vaikom Taluk

Kerala HC7 Feb 2020WP(C)/962/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the writ petition challenging revenue recovery proceedings initiated against property, noting that proceedings regarding one loan notice could proceed while setting aside those regarding another separate loan where a Debt Recovery Tribunal application is pending.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4(2) demand notice dated 05.11.2018 set aside; revenue recovery proceedings regarding Ext.P4 can proceed with necessary intimation to DRT.

Sini Shibu Vs the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr), Vaikom Taluk — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 18TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.962 OF 2020(U)

PETITIONERS:

1 SINI SHIBU

AGED 45 YEARS

W/O.SHIBU,KOLLAPILLIL HOUSE,PERUVA, PERUVA.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686610.

¶10

2 SALI SAJI, AGED 50 YEARS W/O.SAJI MATHEW,MALIKAYIL,KUNNAPPILLY, PERUVA.P.O,KOTTAYAM-686610.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN SRI.C.J.CHACKO SRI.V.RENJITH

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), VAIKOM TALUK VAIKOM TALUK,KOTTAYAM-686141.

¶15

2 CANARA BANK REP.BY ITS MANAGER, KADUTHURUTHY BRANCH,1/298A,TR ARCADE,PALA ROAD,KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM-686604.

¶16

GP - SMT VINEETHA

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No.962 OF 2020(U)

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This writ petition is filed challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the property of the petitioner. The proceedings are under challenge on the ground that the amounts due exceed Rs.20 lakhs. It is stated that an original application has been filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal claiming an amount of Rs.58,41,557/- by the respondent Bank and that in the above view of the matter, the revenue recovery proceedings with regard to the property cannot be proceeded with.

¶22

The learned counsel places reliance on a decision of this Court in Sam. J. Mathews and others vs. Deputy Thahsildar (RR), Taluk Office, Thalapally, Thrichur and others (2019 4 KHC 105) to contend that the revenue recovery proceedings cannot be continued in respect of amounts exceeding the specified limits, which was Rs.10 lakhs and which stands enhanced to Rs.20 lakhs.

¶23

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that Ext.P4 and P4(2) notices would show that the issue is in respect

¶24

WP(C).No.962 OF 2020(U)

¶25

¶26

of two separate loans and two demand notices have been issued. Ext.P4 is a demand notice dated 21.03.2019 for an amount of Rs.3,90,385/- while Ext.P4(2) is demand notice dated 05.11.2018 for an amount of Rs.46,28,739/-. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that Ext.P4 being for an amount of only Rs.3,90,385/-, the contention raised in the writ petition will not cover the said notice. With regard to Ext.P4(2) notice dated 05.11.2018, it is submitted that since an O.A is pending before the DRT, the recovery proceedings on the basis of Ext.P4(2) would have to be suspended awaiting the decision in the O.A.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the O.A has been filed in respect of both the loans and that as such, the further proceedings under Revenue Recovery Act in respect of one of the loans is also not tenable.

¶28

Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the transactions are under different agreements, I am of the opinion that the ground raised by the petitioner would be available only as against Ext.P4(2) demand

¶29

WP(C).No.962 OF 2020(U)

¶30

¶31

notice. In the above view of the matter, Ext.P4(2) is set aside. It is made clear that the revenue recovery proceedings in respect of Ext.P4 can proceed. It is further made clear that in case any recovery is effected pursuant to Ext.P4, the same shall be appropriately informed to the DRT before whom the OA is

¶32

pending and appropriate adjustments shall be made.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

Bng/11.02.2020

WP(C).No.962 OF 2020(U)

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.371/2019 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNALI,ERNAKULAM ,WITHOUT THE ANNEXURES. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS AS RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPIES OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPIES OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C)NO.28221/2019.

Sini Shibu v. the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr), Vaikom Taluk

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sini Shibu v. the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr), Vaikom Taluk

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.S.Krishnakumar Vs Kerala Sidco

Gireesh.P Vs State of Kerala

Pradip Kumar K.B. Vs the Kerala Financial Corporation

M.M.Philip, Vs District Supply Officer

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

Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre Limited Vs Station House Officer, Panangad Police Station