High Court Kerala High Court

Sarith S vs Bank Of India on 22 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sarith S vs Bank Of India on 22 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4076 of 2010(H)


1. SARITH S, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.B.K.SASI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. BANK OF INDIA, MARKET BRANCH, NORTH
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK,

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE,

4. SMT.SHINY JOSEPH, D/O.JOSEPH,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.VINODKUMAR (707/89)

                For Respondent  :SRI.C.A.JOY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :22/02/2010

 O R D E R
             P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
                -----------------------------------------------
                        WP(C) No. 4076 of 2010
                     --------------------------------------
            Dated, this the 22nd day of February, 2010


                            J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is challenging the recovery proceedings stated as

being pursued at the instance of the first respondent Bank invoking the

machinery under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the limited prayer now

pressed is only to permit the petitioner to satisfy the entire liability by

way of reasonable instalments.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the first respondent as well;

who submits on instructions, that some amounts have been paid in

respect of the transaction after the issuance of Ext.P2 Revenue

Recovery notice, as evident from the statement produced by the

petitioner as Ext.P3, showing that the outstanding liability is only

Rs.48,700/- as on 01.01.2010.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is

permitted to clear the entire outstanding liability by way of `three’ equal

monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the

10th of March, 2010, to be followed by similar instalments to be effected

on or before the 10th of the succeeding months. Subject to the above,

WP(C) No.4076/2010
2

the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner

pursuant to Ext.P2 demand notice shall be kept in abeyance. It is also

made clear that if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying

the liability as above, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed

with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc