IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 37086 of 2007(Y)
1. ANNAMMA ABRAHAM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.S.F.E.LTD
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)
For Respondent :SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN, SC, KSFE LTD.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :14/12/2007
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No.37086 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 14th day of December 2007
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a widow of one Itty Abraham Vallikkattil, who
apparently committed suicide on account of certain heavy financial
problems faced by him. One of them related to a liability incurred
with the first respondent herein. Proceedings were instituted before
this Court on more than one occasion, but it is not necessary to
refer to them in detail in the light of the directions proposed to be
issued herein.
2. Exts.P3 and P4 are notices under the Revenue Recovery Act
issued on a requisition made by the first respondent. Learned
counsel for the petitioner Mr.Abraham Mathew submits that the
petitioner is in a position to pay the amount due, as mentioned
therein, provided they are granted some time to effect such
payment.
3. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the first
respondent Mr.M.L.Sajeevan also.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and essentially
taking note of the fact that the liability was incurred by the
W.P.(C)37086/2007 2
petitioner’s late husband who died in tragic circumstances,
petitioner may pay the amount due as per Exts.P3 and P4 in 10
(ten) equal monthly instalments, commencing from the first of
February 2008. It is made clear that if two consecutive instalments
are defaulted, this facility shall stand withdrawn, and it will be open
to the first respondent to enforce the recovery notices without
further notice. Subject to the facility for payment of the amount in
instalments enforcement of Exts.P3 and P4 shall be kept in
abeyance for the above mentioned period.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in certain
cases, government has passed orders granting remission of interest
to the persons who had defaulted repayment of the amount due to
the first respondent. Suffice it to say that the right, if any, available
to the petitioner to avail a similar benefit will be left unaffected by
this judgment.
V.GIRI, JUDGE
css/