Allowed

Molly Thomas v. the District Collector

Kerala HC10 Jun 2022WP(C)/1434/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the revenue recovery notice issued against the petitioner, Union Bank of India, accepting counsel arguments that the underlying computation was erroneous. The Court directed the petitioner to remit the balance owed within two weeks to regularize the loan account and maintain installment payments.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Ext.P1 revenue recovery notice; direction to remit Rs. 51,000/- within two weeks and regularize the loan account.

Molly Thomas Vs the District Collector — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1434 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MOLLY THOMAS AGED 51 YEARS W/O. THOMAS K. C., KOCHUPURAKKAL HOUSE, MUTHOLI P. O., PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686573.

¶8

BY ADV THOMSTINE K.AUGUSTINE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶11

KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM - KUMILY ROAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686002.

¶12

2 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR MEENACHIL TALUK, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL P. O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686575.

¶13

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PULIYANNUR VILLAGE, PULIYANNUR P. O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686503.

¶14

4 UNION BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, OPP. MINI CIVIL STATION, MOOND BUILDING, PALA BRANCH, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686575.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI. RIYAL DEVASSY, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.S.P.KURUP, STANDING COUNSEL-R4

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 1434 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2022

¶21

The writ petition is filed challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated for realisation of the defaulted loan amount due to the 4^th respondent bank.

¶22

The primary contention is that the computation, based on which the revenue recovery proceedings was initiated, is wrong and, if proper calculation is made, the liability will come down substantially.

¶23

While granting an interim order, this Court had directed the petitioner to remit Rs.2 lakh. The petitioner has complied with the condition.

¶24

Learned Standing Counsel for the Bank submitted that the balance amount due as on date is only Rs.51,000/-. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will remit the amount within two weeks, but the revenue recovery proceedings initiated on the basis of a wrong

¶25

WP(C) NO. 1434 OF 2022

¶26

¶27

computation has to be quashed.

¶28

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as

¶29

under;

¶30

i. Ext.P1 revenue recovery notice is quashed.

¶31

ii. The petitioner shall remit the balance overdue amount of Rs.51,000/- within two weeks.

¶32

iii. The loan account shall be regularised on such

¶33

payment.

¶34

iv. The petitioner shall pay the balance monthly installments without default.

¶35

v. If the above conditions are not complied with,

¶36

the Bank can continue the recovery proceedings.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

NB/10-6

WP(C) NO. 1434 OF 2022

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1434/2022

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 10.1.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.

¶46

EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 10.1.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.

¶47

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20/1/2022 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 23/3/2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶48

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶49

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 25.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶50

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶51

TRUE COPY

¶52

P.A. TO JUDGE

Molly Thomas v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Molly Thomas v. the District Collector

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

Jabir T.K Vs Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

C Anil Kumar, Vs the Superintending Engineer

Secretary, Evangelical Social Action Forum (Esaf) Vs the District Registrar (General)

Vivek.S., Vs Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Abdul Khader, Vs Union of India

Salini Devi, Vs State of Kerala