Dismissed

K.K.Alexander v. the District Collector

Kerala HC25 Jul 2023WP(C)/4872/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a revenue recovery notice demanding payment of Rs. 4.06 lakhs from the petitioner regarding dues to a liquidated chitty company (third respondent) was dismissed. The Court found no extraordinary circumstances to stay the proceedings as the petitioner had failed to comply with a prior conditional interim order directing deposit of dues.

What the court decided

AI extract

K.K.Alexander Vs the District Collector — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP(C) No.4872 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 4872 OF 2022

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

K.K.ALEXANDER
AGED 59 YEARS

¶9

S/O.KURIAN, KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, PO PULUR,
IRJALAKUDA, THRISSUR - 680 683.

¶10

BY ADV JOSEPH M.P.

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR - 680 003.

¶13

2 THE DEPUTY THASILDAR OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, IRINJALAKUDA - 680 121.

¶14

3 NAVADEEPAM KURIES (P) LTD. MANIMA BAZAR, CHAVAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.GOVINDAN - 680 056.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

Sri Gopinathan – GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C) No.4872 of 2022

¶20

C.S DIAS,J.

¶21

WP(C) No.4872 of 2022

¶22

----------------------------Dated this the 25^th day of July, 2023^.

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The writ petition is filed challenging Ext P1 revenue

¶25

recovery notice issued by the second respondent demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.4,06,310/-.

¶26

The petitioner’s case is that he was the

¶27

subscriber to a chitty conducted by the third respondent kurie company. The petitioner had bid in the auction and

¶28

was paid an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-. The petitioner’s business ran into heavy loss and he could not pay the chitty subscription on time. Later, the third respondent went into liquidation and the official liquidator was

¶29

¶30

WP(C) No.4872 of 2022

¶31

appointed by this Court to realize the dues of the third respondent. Consequently, the second respondent has

¶32

now issued Ext P1 notice under the Revenue Recovery Act to realise an amount of Rs.4,06,310/-. The petitioner

¶33

has no means to pay the debt under Ext P1 notice. The petitioner has not defaulted in paying the subscription. The petitioner is ready to pay the outstanding amount in instalments. The respondents may be directed to defer further proceedings pursuant to Ext P1 notice. Hence, the writ petition.

¶34

The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that the petitioner has not complied with the interim order dated 15.2.2022 passed by this Court, directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- with the second respondent on

¶35

¶36

WP(C) No.4872 of 2022

¶37

or before 14.3.2022. The respondents 1 and 2 have proceeded under the Act in order to realise the outstanding amount due to the third respondent – company – which is under liquidation. The writ petition may be dismissed.

¶38

Heard; Sri.Joseph M.P, the learned counsel

¶39

appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government

¶40

Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶41

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and after going through Ext P1 demand notice and the fact that the petitioner has not complied with the conditional interim order dated 15.2.2022, I do not find

¶42

any extra-ordinary circumstances to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Article 226 of

¶43

¶44

WP(C) No.4872 of 2022

¶45

the Constitution of India, and stay the recovery

¶46

proceedings.

¶47

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, without

¶48

prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his

¶49

remedies, in accordance with law, if any available.

¶50

SD/-

¶51

sks/25.7.2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

¶52

¶53

WP(C) No.4872 of 2022

¶54

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4872/2022

¶55

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6/12/2021
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

K.K.Alexander v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

K.K.Alexander v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shine P Jacob Vs the Authorised Officer/Chief Manger

Rajesh P.S., Vs Csb Bank Ltd.

Subaida, Vs the Authorized Officer, Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Balakrishnan K., Vs Union Bank of India

M/S.for Most, Represented by Managing Partner, Vs the Deputy Vice President

Bilu K., Vs Authorised Officer