Dismissed

P.D.Arun v. State Bank of Travancore

Kerala HC5 Oct 2021WP(C)/4329/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two connected writ petitions challenging the exclusion of petitioners with loans availed before March 31, 1997, from the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008. The Court held that the Scheme's clause 4.3 explicitly excludes such loans, and the Court cannot expand its scope based on a Budget Speech. Petitioners are directed to approach the Bank for interest representation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file representation with the Bank for interest grievance; no waiver granted for loans before 31.03.1997.

P.D.Arun Vs State Bank of Travancore — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 4505 OF 2009

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

P.D.NAVEEN, S/O. DAMODARA PRABHU PRABHU NIVAS, POOMARATHINGAL, KANDAKKADAVU, KUMBALANGHI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE.

¶7

BY ADV SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE REGISTERED OFFICE AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND, BRANCH AMONG OTHER PLACES AT PAZHANGAD,, KUMBALANGHI PO, COCHIN 682 007, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶10

2 UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY FOR FINANCE, FINANCE MINISTRY.,NEW DELHI.

¶11

BY ADV SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.JITHESH MENON,SC FOR SBI

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).4329/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C). Nos. 4505 & 4329 of 2009

¶16

-2-

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶20

TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 4329 OF 2009

¶21

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 1579/1998 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM

¶22

PETITIONER/S:

¶23

P.D.ARUN,AGED 41 YEARS S/O. DAMODARA PRABHU, PRABHU NIVAS, KANDAKKADAVU,, ANDIKKADAVU P.O., KOCHI TALUK., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶24

BY ADV SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY

¶25

RESPONDENT/S:

¶26

1 STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE

¶27

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., AND BRANCH AMONG OTHER PLACES AT PAZHANGAD,, KUMBALANGHI P.O., COCHIN - 682 007, ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT.

¶28

2 UNION OF INDIA

¶29

REP. BY THE SECRETARY FOR FINANCE,, FINANCE MINISTRY, NEW DELHI.

¶30

3 ADDL.R3.STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶31

ADDL. R3.IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10.02.2009

¶32

BY ADV SRI.K.S.DILIP

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).4505/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

-3-

¶35

W.P.(C). Nos. 4505 & 4329 of 2009

¶36

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶37

============================================================== W.P.(C) Nos.4329 & 4505 of 2009

¶38

Dated this the 5^th day of October, 2021

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The above two writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these two writ petitions by a common judgment. The prayers in these writ petitions are almost same. It would be enough if the prayer in W.P.(C) No.4329 of 2009 is extracted:

¶41

“a) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing all the clauses of Exhibit P2 and Exhibit P3 relating to the proposal to limit the benefit of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Rellef Scheme 2008 to loans availed after 31/3/1997 alone.

¶42

b) A declaration declaring that all Agricultural Loans availed due as on 31/3/2007, regardless of the date of sanction of loan, will also come within the perview of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008, in view

¶43

-4-

¶44

W.P.(C). Nos. 4505 & 4329 of 2009

¶45

of Exhibit P1 budget speech.

¶46

C) A writ, order or direction directing the respondents to give the benefit of Exhibits P1 and P2 to the petitioner also in full, treating his loans as also being eligible for loan waiver in full being a marginal farmer.

¶47

d) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to re-computing the liability of the petitioner after applying the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 and to raise any demand/file any execution petition against the petitioner only if there is any further amount that requires to be realized or recovered even after application of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008.”

¶48

When these two writ petitions came up for

¶49

consideration before this Court earlier, there was an interim

¶50

order staying the recovery. Subsequently, W.P.(C) No.4329/2009 came up for consideration before this Court on

¶51

-5-

¶52

W.P.(C). Nos. 4505 & 4329 of 2009

¶53

10.02.2009, this Court modified the interim order, which is extracted hereunder:

¶54

“Petitioner is a debtor of the first respondent. According to him, he is entitled to the benefit of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme proposed and approved by the Parliament following Ext.P6 speech of the Minister for Finance. However that Ext.P2 Circular has been issued restricting what is granted by the Parliament. On that plea this writ petition is admitted. Adv.Sri.K.S.Dilip takes notice for the first respondent. Adv.Smt.Soumini Devi takes notice on behalf of Assistant Solicitor General.

¶55

So far as the first respondent is concerned it has issued Ext.P7 decision on the request of the petitioner on the basis of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008. Petitioner is unable to point out any illegality on Ext.P7 so long as Ext.P2 stands. The question predominently is the correctness or Ext.P2. Therefore I am not inclined to grant any

¶56

-6-

¶57

W.P.(C). Nos. 4505 & 4329 of 2009

¶58

interim relief as sought for. The execution proceedings in O.A.No.1579/1998 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal will therefore continue and can be taken to its logical end. However, if the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition and it is ultimately found that he is entitled to any benefit by way of deduction in the outstanding or waiver he will not be deprived of his entitlement to seek any restitution or contribution merely because order of stay is refused. The plea raised in this writ petition predominantly relate to the relief for which the second respondent may have to answer. Hence the second respondent is directed to file counter affidavit within 4 months.

¶59

It is also deemed proper that the State of Kerala represented by Chief Secretary is to be an additional respondent in this writ petition. Hence impleaded. Petitioner shall serve a copy of this writ petition on the additional respondent.”

¶60

-7-

¶61

W.P.(C). Nos. 4505 & 4329 of 2009

¶62

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank. I also heard the learned Government Pleader for official

¶63

respondents.

¶64

According to the petitioners, in the light of Ext.P1 budget speech of the Finance Minister, the petitioner is entitled the benefit of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the respondent Bank ought to have given the benefit of Ext.P2 scheme to the petitioner.

¶65

The learned Standing Counsel who appeared for the Bank takes me through Exts.P2 and P3. In Ext.P2, clause 4.3 says that nothing contained in the scheme shall apply to any loan disbursed by a lending institution prior to March 31, 1997. The learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the petitioner availed the loan before 31.03.1997. Moreover, the

¶66

W.P.(C). Nos. 4505 & 4329 of 2009

¶67

-8-

¶68

learned counsel also takes me to clause 2.1 of Ext.P3.

¶69

I considered the contentions of the petitioner and

¶70

the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank. Based on a budget speech this Court cannot include the petitioners within the purview of Ext.P2 scheme. Ext.P2 is a scheme framed by the Central Government. In Ext.P2 clause 4.3 is relevant and the same is extracted hereunder:

¶71

“4.3 Nothing contained in this Scheme shall apply to any loan disbursed by a lending institution prior to March 31, 1997.”

¶72

Similarly, clause 2.1 of Ext.P3 is also relevant and the same is also extracted hereunder:

¶73

“2.1 The Scheme will cover direct agricultural loans extended to 'marginal and small farmers' and 'other farmers' by Scheduled Commercial Banks, Regional Rural Banks, Cooperative Credit Institutions (including Urban Cooperative Banks) and

¶74

-9-

¶75

W.P.(C). Nos. 4505 & 4329 of 2009

¶76

Local Area Banks (hereinafter referred to compendiously as “lending institutions”) as indicated in the Guidelines.”

¶77

Admittedly, the petitioners availed the loan before 31.03.1997. In such circumstances, according to me, the petitioners are not entitled the benefit of agricultural debt waiver and debt relief scheme, 2008.

¶78

Then the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the matter is pending before this Court, some relaxation may be given as far as the interest portion is concerned. That is a matter to be decided by the respondent Bank. The petitioners are free to approach the respondent Bank with a representation for that purpose and the respondent Bank will do the needful in accordance to law.

¶79

Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner:

¶80

-10-

¶81

W.P.(C). Nos. 4505 & 4329 of 2009

¶82

The petitioners are free to file representation before the 1^st respondent Bank, if there is any surviving grievance to them, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶83

If such a representation is received, the competent officer of the 1^st respondent Bank will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

JUDGE

das

-11-

W.P.(C). Nos. 4505 & 4329 of 2009

¶90

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4329/2009

¶91

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶92

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BUDGET SPEECH 2008-09 BY SHRI.P.CHITHAMBARAM, MINISTER OF FINANCE DATED 29/2/2008
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,RBI DATED 23/5/2008, TOGETHER WITH AGRICULTURAL DEBT WAIVER AND DEBT RELIEF SCHEME,2008
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF IMPLEMENTATION CIRCULAR NO.1/2008 DATED 28/5/2008 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT SEEKING THE BENEFIT OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEBT WAIVER SCHEME
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 19/7/2008 ISSUED BY THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/7/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/8/2008 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, SBT, ERNAKULAM

¶93

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶94

EXHIBIT R1(a)	CIRCULAR ISSUED 14.07.2004	BY THE BANK DATED
EXHIBIT R1(b)	CIRCULAR ISSUED	BY THE BANK DATED
	18.10.2006

¶95

-12-

¶96

W.P.(C). Nos. 4505 & 4329 of 2009

¶97

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4505/2009

¶98

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶99

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BUDGET SPEECH 2008-09 BY SHRI.P.CHITHAMBARAM, MINISTER OF FINANCE DATED 29/2/2008 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,RBI DATED 23/5/2008, TOGETHER WITH AGRICULTURAL DEBT WAIVER AND DEBT RELIEF SCHEME,2008

¶100

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF IMPLEMENTATION CIRCULAR NO.1/2008 DATED 28/5/2008 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES.

¶101

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/3/2008 RECEIVED ON 28/3/2008 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 28/7/2008 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER No.AGM/1 DATED 6/8/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE

P.D.Arun v. State Bank of Travancore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.D.Arun v. State Bank of Travancore

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

Dr. Reema Thomas Kochupurakal Vs State of Kerala

K.B.Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

Johnson Peter Vs State of Kerala and Others

Anas .S Vs State of Kerala

Shahul Hameed O.M. Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Tom Vs India Oil Corporation Ltd.