High Court Kerala High Court

K.Manojkumar vs State Bank Of Travancore on 28 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.Manojkumar vs State Bank Of Travancore on 28 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29563 of 2010(U)


1. K.MANOJKUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ABIDA SALAM, AGED 50 YEARS,
3. R.KRISHNA PILLAI,

                        Vs



1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :28/09/2010

 O R D E R
                           C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J
                    ---------------------------
                       W.P(C) No.29563 of 2010-U
             Dated----------------------------2010.
                    this the 28th day of September,

                             J U D G M E N T

Petitioners are aggrieved by coercive steps initiated under the

provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, on issuing Ext.P2

notice. The first petitioner availed a loan from the first respondent

Bank for business purposes. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the guarantors.

Consequent to default committed in repayment, the first respondent

had filed a suit before the Sub Court, Alappuzha, as

O.S.No.14/2010. It is stated that the amount claimed in the suit is

Rs.5,54,143/-. The suit as well as the application for attachment is

pending decision before the Civil Court.

2. Grievance of the petitioners is that during pendency of

the civil suit, revenue recovery steps were initiated at the behest of

the first respondent, and the impugned notices under Section 7 of

the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act was issued. It is contended by the

petitioners that initiation of parallel proceedings of recovery is not

sustainable. It is trite law by this time that pendency of a civil suit is

not a bar for invoking provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, if the

W.P(C) No.29563 of 2010-U 2

debt is one recoverable under the said Act or by virtue of

notification issued under Section 71 of the said Act. Therefore I am

not inclined to entertain this writ petition on the merits to restrain

the proceedings.

3. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay off the arrears

despite pendency of the civil suit, provided a reasonable time is

granted for payment of the amount in instalments. Eventhough

interference on merits is not at all warranted, I am inclined to grant

relief in permitting payment of the amount in instalments within a

reasonable time, without prejudice to rights of the first respondent

to pursue the civil suit.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of restraining

the second respondent from taking any coercive steps pursuant to

Ext.P2 notice, provided the petitioners make payment of the amount

demanded along with future interest and expenses if any due, in 10

(ten) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before

15.10.2010 and on or before the 15th day of succeeding months.

5. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment

of any of the instalments the respondents will be free to proceed

W.P(C) No.29563 of 2010-U 3

with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is

granted subject to the condition that the petitioners are precluded

from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings,

either before this Court or before any other forum.

Sd/-

C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge
ab