Allowed

Mohammed Haneefa.P.v. v. the Kerala Grameen Bank, Represented by Its Manager

Kerala HC2 Feb 2024WP(C)/734/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a revenue recovery notice demanding an erroneously inflated amount due to a clerical mistake. The Court quashed the notice though allowing the Bank to initiate fresh legal proceedings for recovery.

What did the court decide?

Ext. P3 revenue recovery notice is quashed; liberty granted to Bank to commence new recovery proceedings.

Mohammed Haneefa.P.v. Vs the Kerala Grameen Bank… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 734 OF 2024

¶3

PETITIONERS:

¶4

1 MOHAMMED HANEEFA.P.V. AGED 39 YEARS S/O ALAVI, POTTAMMAL VAGAYIL HOUSE, CHELLUR, P.O. PAZHOOR, NADUVATTOM AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679571.

¶5

2 HASRATH ABOOBACKER AGED 37 YEARS

¶6

S/O ALAVI, POTTAMMAL VAGAYIL HOUSE, CHELLUR, P.O. PAZHOOR, NADUVATTOM AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679571.

¶7

BYADVP.M.POULOSE

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE KERALA GRAMEEN BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER KUTTIPURAM BRANCH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679571.

¶10

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM,, PIN - 676505.

¶11

3 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676101.

¶12

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, NADUVATTOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679571

¶13

SRI.RASSALJANARDHANAN,SCFORKERALAGRAMINBANK
SRI.PMSHAMEER,GP.

¶14

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
02.02.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C)NO.734OF2024

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioners, who are the offsprings of late Alavi, have approached this Court seeking to quash Ext. P3 revenue recovery notice. They contend that to realise the amounts due to the Bank, legal action was initiated. The suit was decreed, permitting the Bank to recover a sum of Rs.1,30,266/along with an interest rate of 12%. The petitioners state that they have already approached the Court seeking to set aside the judgment passed ex parte.

¶19

They contend that they have now been served with Ext. P3 notice, demanding a substantially higher amount of Rs.21,72,959/-. They contend that this figure grossly exceeds the decree amount of Rs.1,30,266/as stipulated in the judgment dated 18.12.2021.

¶20

In response, the counsel representing the respondent Bank acknowledged that a discrepancy had crept in Ext. P3 notice. Specifically, the intended additional charge was merely Rs.20,677.31, but due to a clerical error during the issuance process, it was mistakenly recorded as Rs.20,67,731. It is submitted that the Bank has no objection in quashing Ext. P3, albeit by granting the Bank the liberty to commence new recovery proceedings as per legal stipulations.

¶21

Having considered the facts and circumstances and the submissions advanced and recognizing the acknowledged error in the

¶22

WP(C)NO.734OF2024

¶23

¶24

Revenue Recovery notice, Ext. P3 is hereby quashed. However, the quashing

¶25

of Ext. P3 shall not preclude the Bank from initiating legal actions to pursue

¶26

the recovery of the due amount in a manner consistent with the law.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶29

Sru

¶30

WP(C)NO.734OF2024

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 734/2024

¶33

PETITIONER’SEXHIBITS

¶34

ExhibitP1TRUECOPYOFTHEPLAINTINO.S.NO.225/2020
ONTHEFILEOFMUNSIFFCOURT,TIRURDATED
27.10.2020WITHOUTLISTOFDOCUMENTS.
ExhibitP2TRUECOPYOFTHEJUDGMENTDATED18.12.2021IN
O.S.NO.225/2020OFTHEMUNSIFFCOURT,TIRUR.
ExhibitP3TRUECOPYOFTHEREVENUERECOVERYNOTICE(RRC
NO.2023/1912/10DATED3.4.2023ISSUEDBYTHE
3RDRESPONDENTTOTHEPETITIONERS.

Mohammed Haneefa.P.v. v. the Kerala Grameen Bank, Represented by Its Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Haneefa.P.v. v. the Kerala Grameen Bank, Represented by Its Manager

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

Unistone Pavers and Blocks Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

C.S. Ayoob Khan Vs the Joint Registrar (General)

Rajendra Prasad.S Vs the Paravur Snvrc Bank Ltd. NO.1685

L. Shaji Vs Sri. C.N. Raman

Thiruvananthapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.T-131 Vs the Managing Director

Shahul Hameed P a, Vs Vellangallureservice Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.768