Allowed

T.a.Abdulla v. the Special Tahasildar ( R R)

Kerala HC20 Jan 2021WP(C)/8081/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashed a Revenue Recovery notice issued at the instance of a bank where the debt exceeded ₹10 lakhs and proceedings under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 were pending. The court relied on Sam J. Mathews v. Deputy Tahsildar (RR) to hold that adjudication of such disputes lies with the Debt Recovery Tribunal, not the Revenue authorities.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the Revenue Recovery notice (Ext.P2) issued by the 1st respondent was set aside.

T.a.Abdulla Vs the Special Tahasildar ( R R) — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/30TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.8081 OF 2020(I)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 T.A.ABDULLA, S/O.ABOOBACKER ABDULLA, 7,1172, CHENNALIPARAMBU ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 002.

¶8

2 AISHA BEEVI, W/O.T.A.ABDULLA, 7,1172, CHENNALIPARAMBU ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 002.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.JAGAN ABRAHAM M.GEORGE SRI.JAISON ANTONY

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (R R) KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM-695 103.

¶13

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MATTANCHERRY, ERNAKULAM-682 005.

¶14

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THOPPUMPADI, ERNAKULAM-695 305.

¶15

4 CRLD,NODAL REGIONAL OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G. ROAD, COCHIN-682 035,

¶16

REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER

¶17

5 UNION BANK OF INDIA,KOCHI MAIN BRANCH, NEAR BAZAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY,KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682 002, REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶18

R1-R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RASHMI K.M. R4-R5 SRI A.S.P. KURUP, SC FOR UBI

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) No.8081/2020

: 2 :

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2021

¶25

The 1^st petitioner availed a Cash Credit facility from

¶26

the 5^th respondent-Bank. Facility initially was to avail ₹20 lakhs, but was gradually enhanced to ₹75 lakhs by 30.09.2016. The 2^nd petitioner, who is the wife of 1^st petitioner, was Guarantor. Residential property of 2.08 Ares in Survey No.626/4 of Mattancherry Village was mortgaged as security.

¶27

The 1^st petitioner defaulted repayment since 2018, and the 5^th respondent-Bank invoked Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 filing O.A. No.389/2019 in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. SARFAESI proceedings were also resorted to. According to the petitioners, the property secured by the Bank is sufficient to cover the accumulated debt.

¶28

W.P.(C) No.8081/2020

¶29

: 3 :

¶30

While such legal proceedings were pending, the 5^th respondent resorted to Revenue Recovery (RR) proceedings. The Special Tahsildar (RR) therefore issued Ext.P2 notice dated 10.02.2020 proposing to attach the property of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the Revenue Recovery proceedings resorted to at the instance of the Bank, the petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P2 notice.

¶31

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent.

¶32

In the judgment in Sam J. Mathews v. Deputy Tahsildar (RR) [ 2019 (3) KLT 641], this Court considered the legality of Banks initiating Revenue Recovery proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act during the pendency of proceedings under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. This Court categorically held that if any dispute is raised with respect to debts as defined by the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for amounts of more than ₹10 lakhs, an adjudication can be done only by the Debt

¶33

W.P.(C) No.8081/2020

¶34

: 4 :

¶35

Recovery Tribunal under the Act, 1993 and not by the District Collector under the Revenue Recovery Act and that such adjudication becomes untenable when the debt is for more than ₹10 lakhs.

¶36

In the case of the petitioners, admittedly the debt is of more than ₹10 lakhs and the Bank has already initiated proceedings under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. Therefore, the issue involved in this writ petition is covered by the judgment of this Court in Sam J. Mathews v. Deputy Tahsildar (RR) (supra), in favour of the petitioners.

¶37

The writ petition is therefore allowed and Ext.P2

¶38

notice issued by the 1^st respondent is set aside.

¶39

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/20.01.2021

W.P.(C) No.8081/2020

: 5 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.389/2019 WITHOUT ANNEXURES PENDING BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAULAM EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE, WHICH IS ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (RR) KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM

¶46

ncd

T.a.Abdulla v. the Special Tahasildar ( R R)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.a.Abdulla v. the Special Tahasildar ( R R)

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

M.P Jose Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner

M/S Seahorse Ship Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union of India

C.T.Lukose Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Bindu.B Vs State of Kerala

Col.Augustine Mangatteparambil (Retd) Vs the Unit Head

V.M.Ashraf Vs State of Kerala