IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24809 of 2009(U)
1. MYTHEEN KUNJU,AGED 56 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR,TALUK OFFICE,
3. THE SECRETARY,KERALA VYAPARI VYVASAYI
For Petitioner :SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.R.S.KALKURA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :29/10/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.24809 OF 2009
------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
———————-
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by coercive steps initiated
under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of arrears in a
Bank loan which was availed by his deceased son. Petitioner’s
son Sri:Navas M. had availed a loan to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs
from the 1st respondent Bank for business purpose of conducting
a Book Stall, on hypothecating the stock in trade, including
books and furniture. The son died on 17.5.2008 on account of
injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Petitioner
submits that he is a chronic heart patient and is not in a financial
position to pay off the liability. According to the petitioner a
claim petition filed with respect to the motor accident is pending
disposal before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alapuzha
and the petitioner is ready and willing to pay off the liability out
of the amount of compensation expected to be received.
However, on default in payment the Bank had requisitioned for
action under the Revenue Recovery Act and Ext.P4 notice is
issued demanding an amount of Rs.2,14,764/- with future
interest. On receipt of the said notice the petitioner had
W.P.(C).24809/09-U 2
approached the Bank with a representation as evidenced by
Ext.P5 narrating all the above facts. It is also submitted that the
amount under demand is not correct in view of the statement of
accounts issued by the Bank.
2. In the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it
is mentioned that the loan in question was secured only through
hypothecation of the books and furnitures and also through
personal guarantee of two other persons namely Mr. Mohammed
Mansoor and Gopalakrishnan. It is submitted that the
petitioner’s son had paid an amount of Rs.27,300/- and an
amount of Rs.2,14,764/- is outstanding as on 1.6.2008, along
with future interest. It is further contended that the petitioner
himself had availed another loan from the Bank for conducting
business activities. It is also stated that the 1st respondent Bank
had already instituted a suit before civil court for realisation of
the amounts due in the loan account.
3. Considering the rival contentions it is evident that
there is no property belonging to the deceased borrower which
is proceeded against. The person and properties of the
petitioner could not be proceeded against pursuant to the steps
initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act, for the default of the
deceased son. Therefore the petitioner could not have any
grievance against the revenue recovery steps being initiated. It
W.P.(C).24809/09-U 3
is clear that recovery can be proceeded only against the
hypothecated articles as well as against the persons who stood
as personal guarantors for securing the loan.
4. Under the above circumstances I am of the opinion
that no interference is called for in this writ petition and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb