Vibin vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9034 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
     WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945
                         WP(C) NO. 5538 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:

    1     VIBIN
          AGED 40 YEARS
          S/O BALAKRISHNAN, KOORKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MULLASSERY
          P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680509
    2     KAVITHA
          AGED 36 YEARS
          WIFE OF VIBIN, KOORKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MULLASSERY P.O.
          THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680509
          BY ADVS.
          S.VINOD BHAT
          ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN
          GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
          VELLANGALLUR BRANCH, VELLANGALLUR REPRESENTED BY ITS
          BRANCH MANAGER., PIN - 680662
    2     DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR)
          CHAVAKKAD TALUK, CHAVAKKAD, PIN - 680506
    3     DISTRICT COLLECTOR
          COLLECTORATE, COLLECTORATE AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN -
          680003



          SRI. P C SASIDHARAN (FOR RESP),
          SMT. DEEPA V (GP)


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 5538 OF 2023                2




                                   JUDGMENT

Petitioners have approached this Court, challenging the

proceedings initiated against them under the provisions of the

Revenue Recovery Act, on the ground that the demands are

clearly barred by limitation.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

submit that Exts.P3 and P4 notices issued under the provisions

of the Revenue Recovery Act will clearly show that the date on

which the arrears fell due is on 28.03.2010. It is submitted that

if the amounts were due on 28.03.2010, revenue recovery

proceedings could not have been initiated on the basis of a

requisition given by the bank in the year 2023.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank

would submit that the date (28.03.2010) mentioned in Exts.P3

and P4 can only be a mistake. Reference is made to the counter

affidavit filed in this case to contend that the 1st petitioner

availed a loan on 29.03.2011 and on default being committed,

the bank decided to initiate proceedings under Section 69 of

the Co-operative Societies Act, in the year 2015. It is submitted

that thereafter, proceedings numbered as ARC No.781 of 2015

were commenced and Ext.R1(d) award was passed on

18.12.2017, quantifying the amount payable by the petitioners.

It is submitted that the award was also communicated to the

petitioners and since even after the award no amount was paid

by the petitioners, execution proceedings were initiated by the

bank. Reference is made in this regard to Ext.R1(e). It is

submitted that in the totality of the facts and circumstances, the

mistake committed by the revenue authorities while issuing

Exts.P3 and P4 revenue recovery notices cannot be taken to be

a ground to quash the proceedings initiated against the

petitioners on the ground that it is barred by limitation and that

the documents produced by the respondent bank along with the

counter affidavit would clearly show that the claims are not

barred by limitation.

4. Learned Government Pleader would submit that, in the

light of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent bank, it

appears that the date (28.03.2010) mentioned as the date on

which the amount became due in Exts.P3 and P4 can only be a

mistake. It is submitted that if this Court so directs, those

notices can be withdrawn and fresh notices can be issued to the

petitioners in these cases.

5. The question to be considered is whether the

revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent

bank is barred by limitation. A reference to the counter

affidavit filed in this case will show that an award was

passed in A.R.C.No.781 of 2015 on 18.12.2017. The copy

of the award has been produced as Ext.R1(d) along with the

counter affidavit. There is also an endorsement in

Ext.R1(d) that the copy of the award was despatched to the

petitioners on 28.8.2018. Though there is an averment in

the reply affidavit that the petitioners have not received

Ext.R1(d), and that they had not executed any 'vakkalth

nama' before the Arbitrator, the contention cannot be

accepted in the absence of any material and in the absence

of any pleading in the writ petition to that effect. In terms

of the provisions contained in Section 76 of the Kerala Co-

operative Societies Act, Ext.R1(d) can be executed in the

same manner as a decree of a civil court. The said

provision also makes it clear that if revenue recovery

proceedings are initiated or when an execution petition is

filed, the same has to be filed within twelve years from the

date of the award. Thus, when the provisions of Section 76

of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act itself provides for a

period of limitation, it cannot be said that revenue recovery

proceedings to recover the amounts determined in terms of

an award dated 18.12.2017 is barred by limitation. The

revenue recovery notices (Exts.P2 and P3), no doubt,

indicate that the recovery proceedings were to recover the

amount due as on 28.3.2010. However, as rightly pointed

out by the learned Government Pleader, this can only be a

mistake as the loan in question itself was granted only in

the year 2011. In the light of the above, the writ petition is

disposed of with the following direction:-

The revenue recovery notices issued to the petitioners

and produced as Exts.P2 and P3 shall be withdrawn and

fresh revenue recovery notices shall be issued on the basis

of the requisition already made by the bank, after showing

the correct date on which the amounts became due. If the

petitioners have any other grievance against the revenue

recovery proceedings to be initiated against them by

issuing fresh notices as above (grievances other than on the

question of limitation which has been considered in this

judgment), it will be open to the petitioners to raise those

objections in accordance with the law.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE ajt

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5538/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20-

02-2021 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24-10-2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DEMANDING AMOUNT Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23-01-2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY NOTICE DATED 24-01-2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R1(a) A true copy of the demand notice dated 16-12-

Exhibit R1(b) A true copy of the resolution adopted by the bank dated 13-08-2015 Exhibit R1(c) A true copy of the summons issued by the joint Registrar to the petitioners dated 20-- 11-2017 Exhibit R1(d) A true copy of the Award in ARC 781 of 2015 dated 18-12-2017 Exhibit R1(e) A true copy of the Execution application dated 31-10-2018