Allowed

Saramma Varkey v. the District Collector

Kerala HC11 Jan 2023WP(C)/801/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the Bank for Rs. 30 Lakhs, arguing violation of Section 17 which mandates DRT jurisdiction for debts above Rs. 20 Lakhs. The court quashed the recovery notices, relying on Sam J. Mathews.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the revenue recovery notices dated 29.07.2021 and 15.12.2022, subject to the Bank's liberty to initiate recovery through other modes.

Saramma Varkey Vs the District Collector — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 21ST POUSHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 801 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1SARAMMA VARKEY
AGED 88 YEARS
W/O VARKEY, MANAGING PARTNER,
NOVEL EMPORIO, CHIRAKKAKUDY HOUSE, POOPPANI ROAD,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683542
2RAJ V PETER
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O PATHROSE,
PARTNER BRAND HUB, VATTACKATTU, PERUMBAVOR,
RAYAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683545
BY ADVS.
K.R.PRATHISH
P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030

¶10

2 THE TAHASILDAR KUNNATHUNADU TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNAD, POOPPANI RD, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683543

¶11

3 VILLAGE OFFICER PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, WATER TANK, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683542

¶12

4 BANK OF INDIA PERUMBAVOOR BRANCH, DARSANAM CHAMBERS, FIRST FLOOR, M.C ROAD, ERNAKULAM REP BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 683542 BY ADV JAWAHAR JOSE

WP(C) 801 of 2023

OTHER PRESENT:

GP, AMMINIKUTTY K

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

WP(C) 801 of 2023

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2023

¶22

The challenge in this writ petition is against the revenue recovery proceedings initiated at the instance of the 4^th respondent Bank, for recovering an amount of around Rs.30 Lakhs due from the petitioner. The challenge is on the premise that as per Section 17 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, the mode of recovery of debts above Rs.20 Lakhs is only through the DRT. The issue is covered in the petitioner’s favour by virtue of the decision in Sam J. Mathews and Ors. v. Deputy Tahsildar (RR), Taluk Office Thalapally, Trichur and Ors. (2019 (4) KHC 105) as also Ext. P3 judgment. Being so, the challenge against the revenue recovery proceedings initiated for realization of about Rs. 30 lakhs is liable to be interfered with.

¶23

The writ petition is accordingly allowed by quashing

¶24

WP(C) 801 of 2023

¶25

¶26

Ext.P2 and leaving open the Bank's liberty to initiate recovery

¶27

measures through other modes.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

mtk

WP(C) 801 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 801/2023

¶34

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶35

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S. 13(2) OF
SARFESI DATED 29.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE
BANK
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE
DATED 15.12.2022 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
30.09.2022 IN W.A NO. 864 OF 2022 BEFORE
THIS HON'BLE COURT

Saramma Varkey v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saramma Varkey 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Manoj Raj.R Vs Corporation Bank- 0527

M/S Tulsi Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Biju P. Ayyappan Vs Deputy Tahsildar

Jayasree.K.S. Vs the District Supply Officer

Maxpro Nidhi Ltd. Vs Union of India

Kp Udayakumar Vs the District Supply Officer