Wednesday, 15, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

A.V.Sujatha vs The District Industries Centre
2024 Latest Caselaw 10012 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10012 Ker
Judgement Date : 5 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

A.V.Sujatha vs The District Industries Centre on 5 April, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
  FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                    WP(C) NO. 7553 OF 2016
PETITIONER:

          A.V.SUJATHA
          AGED 50 YEARS, W/O RAVEENDRAN NAIR,
          AIKKARA HOUSE, VAZHAMUTTAM (E) P.O.,
          PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 647.


          BY ADVS.
               SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
               SMT.S.INDU


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE
          KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN- 689 645.
          REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

    2     THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
          REVENUE RECOVERY, KOZHENCHERRY,
          PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.

    3     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
          PRAMADAM/KONNI VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY,
          PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.
          BY ADV. VENUGOPAL V. (GP)




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.7553/2016
                                         -:2:-




                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner availed a margin money loan from the

District Industries Centre, Kozhencherry, for starting a

workshop.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that owing

to health issues, the workshop of the petitioner had to be shut

down. It is submitted that revenue recovery proceedings have

been initiated to recover the margin money of Rs.25,000/-

together with interest at the rate of 11.5% (from 28-01-1997)

after about 18 years. It is submitted that the revenue recovery

proceedings are barred by limitation.

3. The learned Government Pleader submits that there

is no question of the revenue recovery proceedings being barred

by limitation, as admittedly, the amounts are amounts due to

the Government and the amounts were disbursed on the basis of

an agreement executed between the petitioner and the

Government through the District Industries Centre,

Kozhencherry. It is submitted that the limitation for recovery is

therefore 30 years under Article 112 of the Schedule to the

Limitation Act, and therefore, the recovery proceedings are not

barred by limitation as contended by the petitioner.

4. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to pay

off the principal amount in some instalments. It is submitted

that considering the long delay in initiating the recovery

proceedings, the interest on the amount may be waived.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader and having regard to the

facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the

fact that the petitioner is a woman entrepreneur who could not

successfully carry on the business for which the margin money

was allotted owing to her health condition, I am of the opinion

that the petitioner can be given an opportunity to pay off the

principal amount in some instalments, making it clear that if the

petitioner does not clear the liability as permitted, it will be

open to the respondents to continue with the recovery

proceedings for recovery of the amount together with interest

thereon.

Accordingly, this writ petition will stand disposed of

directing that the petitioner shall pay the principal amount of

Rs.25,000/- in three (03) equal monthly instalments. The 1 st

instalment shall be paid on or before 30-04-2024. The 2 nd

instalment shall be paid on or before 31-05-2024 and the 3 rd

instalment shall be paid on or before 30-06-2024. If any of the

one instalment is not paid, it will be open to the respondents to

continue with the revenue recovery proceedings now initiated

against the petitioner. Considering the fact that this judgment is

issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is

made clear that this shall not be treated as a precedent in any

future case.

Sd/-

                                             GOPINATH P.
ats                                              JUDGE






                        APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7553/2016

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1:            TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED      30.12.2015
                       ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2:            TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 34 OF

THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 3.12.2015.

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.2.2016 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE IST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPIES OF THE TREATMENT RECORDS ISSUED FROM KERALA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter