Allowed

Joshy C.C v. the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

Kerala HC20 Sept 2023WP(C)/3045/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged revenue recovery action by a bank for a vehicle loan via a writ petition. The court held the recovery under Section 72 of the Revenue Recovery Act was impermissible, set aside the notice, but allowed the bank to pursue other legal remedies.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Ext.P1 revenue recovery demand issued by respondents 1 and 2. Clarified that the Bank can initiate action under other available statutes.

Joshy C.C Vs the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr) — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 29TH BHADRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 3045 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

JOSHY C.C. AGED 56 YEARS, S/O CHAKKAPPAN, CHINGAMTHARA HOUSE, THRIKKAKARA, EDAPALLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682024 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) KANAYANNUR TALUK, PARK AVE, NEAR SUBHASH PARK, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, PIN - 682011 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030 3 THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK UDYOGAMANDAL BRANCH, ELOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -683 501 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER BY ADVS. SUNIL SHANKAR A VIDYA GANGADHARAN(K/000424/2020) SANDHRA.S(K/001610/2021)

¶9

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

W.P.(C).No. 3045 of 2023

¶11

: 2 :

¶12

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶13

========================= W.P.(C).No. 3045 of 2023

¶14

========================== Dated this the 20^th day of September, 2023

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The specific case of the petitioner, as argued by his learned

¶17

counsel – Sri.Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal, is that the revenue recovery action initiated by the 3^rd respondent – Bank against him, allegedly for recovery of certain amounts due from him under a loan facility availed of from them earlier, is not permissible under Section 72 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 ('RR Act' for short). He pointed that the loan in question is a vehicle loan, which he had availed for the purpose of purchase of a contract carriage, to the tune of more than Rs.33 lakhs, in the year 2015. He argued that, therefore, it is clear from the judgment of this Court in Sam J. Mathew v. Deputy

¶18

Tahsildar (RR) [2019 (4) KHC 105], that invocation of the revenue recovery action by the Bank is illegal and unlawful, since it is beyond the a mbit of Section 72 of the RR Act .

¶19

Sri.Sunil Shankar – learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent Bank, submitted that he leaves it to this Court to decide whether the revenue recovery action requisitioned by his client is tenable; but sought liberty for them to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner and the vehicle in terms of other applicable

¶20

W.P.(C).No. 3045 of 2023

¶21

: 3 :

¶22

statutes.

¶23

I have no doubt that, going by the pleadings and materials on record – which remain uncontested, an action for recovery of the amounts due under loan in question cannot be taken forward. This is because, the said loan is not one that has been brought within the a mbit of Section 72 o f the RR Act; and the respondent – Bank also does not have a case to the contrary.

¶24

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P1 demand issued by respondents 1 and 2; however, clarifying that the Bank can initiate appropriate action against the petitioner and the vehicle, in any manner as they choose fit, under other available statutes.

¶25

After I dictated this part of the judgment, Sri.Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal – learned counsel for the petitioner, sought permission for his client to approach the Bank for a one-time settlement. It does not require this Court to reserve any such liberty because, it is always available to the petitioner to do so, subject to the decision to be taken by the Bank.

¶26

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶27

anm

¶28

W.P.(C).No. 3045 of 2023

¶29

: 4 :

¶30

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3045/2023

¶31

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE VIDE RRC.NO.2022/20098/07 DATED 30-122022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT REPORTED IN 2019 (4) KHC 105

Joshy C.C v. the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joshy C.C v. the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

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

Babu Philip Vs Suresh Kumar T

Thomas Sebastian Vs Ajeesh Thomas

Remya Mohandas Vs Vijesh Vijayan

Umesan P Vs the Secretary

Heba K.R Vs Manu Michael

Ambili a.S., Vs the State of Kerala