Kerala High Court
Jaison Mathew vs The District Collector, Palakkad on 12 June, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 3049 OF 2017
PETITIONER/S:
JAISON MATHEW
AGED 56 YEARS
AGED 56, S/O.M.V.MATHAI, M/S.LITTLE FLOWER TRADERS,
VP.1/543, MAIN ROAD, VADAKKANCHERRY, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN 678683
BY ADV SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD.
DISTRICT, 678001
2 THE TAHASILDAR
ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN 678541
3 VILLAGE OFFICER
VADAKKANCHERRY, PALAKKAD, PIN 678683
4 THE MANAGER
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, GB ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN 678001
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.SUNIL SHANKER
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. THUSHARA JAMES (SR GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.3049/2017 2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been filed challenging the revenue
recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner at the instance of
the 4th respondent. The contention raised is that in the light of the
provisions contained in the Recovery of Debts (Due to Banks and
Financial Institutions) Act, 1993 (now known as the Recovery of Debts
and Bankruptcy Act,1993) and since the amount sought to be
recovered is in excess of Rs.10 lakhs, the revenue recovery
proceedings are barred in view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. v. U.P.
Financial Corporation Ltd and others; (2003) 2 SCC 455.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent bank
very fairly admits that, at the relevant time, the Debts Recovery
Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider applications for recovery of debts
due to banks and financial institutions provided those claims were in
excess of Rs.10 lakhs and the monetary limit of jurisdiction of the
Debts Recovery Tribunal was enhanced from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.20
lakhs only with effect from 6.9.2018.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent bank and having
regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Unique Butyle
Tube Industries (P) Ltd (supra) which was followed and explained
by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and others v.
HDFC Bank Ltd and others; 2022(5) KLT OnLine 1240, I am
of the view that the revenue recovery proceedings were not competent
at the relevant time.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed quashing the
revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner at the
instance of the 4th respondent bank and making it clear that this will
not prevent the 4th respondent bank from pursuing any other remedy
open to it to recover the amounts due from the petitioner.
sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
acd
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3049/2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL
PETITION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WPC.NO. 28110/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED
18.01.2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RE HEARING
PETITION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
