This petition challenged revenue recovery proceedings by a bank for a debt exceeding Rs.20 Lakhs. Relying on Sam J. Mathews (2019), the Court held that such recovery cannot be done by revenue authorities and quashed the notice.
The writ petition is allowed by quashing Ext. P2 - Revenue Recovery Notice dated 17.12.2022.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 19TH POUSHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 544 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 SARAMMA VARKEY AGED 88 YEARS W/O VARKEY, MANAGING PARTNER, NOVEL EMPORIO, CHIRAKKAKUDY HOUSE, POOPPANI ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683542
BY ADVS. K.R.PRATHISH P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
OTHER PRESENT:
W.P.(C) 544/2023
2
GP P.S.APPU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) 544/2023
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 9th day of January, 2023
The challenge in this writ petition is against the revenue recovery proceedings initiated at the instance of the 4th respondent Bank seeking recovery of an amount of around Rs.30 Lakhs. The challenge is on the premise that as per Section 17 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, recovery of debts above Rs.20 Lakhs cannot be done by any person or institution or entity other than the Tribunal constituted under the Act, namely the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The question mooted in this writ petition is no longer res integra in the light of the decision in Sam J. Mathews and Ors. v. Deputy Tahsildar (RR), Taluk Office Thalapally, Trichur and Ors. (2019 (4) KHC 105) and Ext. P3 judgment. In such circumstances, the revenue recovery proceedings initiated for realization of more than Rs.20 Lakhs cannot be sustained.
W.P.(C) 544/2023
4
The writ petition is hence allowed by quashing Ext. P2
and reserving the Bank's liberty to initiate recovery measures
through other modes.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
sb
W.P.(C) 544/2023
5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 544/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN RECALL NOTICE ISSUED BY THE BANK DATED 29.07.2021 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 17.12.2022 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.2022 IN W.A NO. 864 OF 2022 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT
1 issue framed by the court
Whether revenue recovery proceedings initiated for realization of debt exceeding Rs.20 Lakhs are sustainable under Section 17 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sam J. Mathews and Ors. v. Deputy Tahsildar (RR), Taluk Office Thalapally, Trichur and Ors.Referred¶24
Sam J. Mathews and Ors. v. Deputy Tahsildar (RR), Taluk Office Thalapally, Trichur and Ors. (2019 (4) KHC 105)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SARAMMA VARKEY AGED 88 YEARS W/O VARKEY, MANAGING PARTNER
SHEEJA K RAJAN AGED 47 YEARS /O MADHU KUMKUMATH
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD
THE TAHASILDAR KUNNATHUNADU TALUK OFFICE
VILLAGE OFFICER PERUMBAVOOR
BANK OF INDIA PERUMBAVOOR BRANCH
V.G.ARUN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
