Kerala High Court
V. L. Lalitha vs State Bank Of Travancore on 10 June, 2025
2025:KER:39911
W.A No.253 of 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO. 253 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.02.2015 IN WPC NO.32220
OF 2007 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 V. L. LALITHA
W/O. A.GOURISHANKAR, LAKSHMI NIVAS, HPO-678 001,
COLLEGE ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2 G.SUBHALAKSHMI
W/O. SATISH RAGHAVAN, LAKSHMI NIVAS, HPO-678 001,
COLLEGE ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.L.LALITHA, W/O. A.GOURISHANKAR,
LAKSHMI NIVAS, HPO-678 001, COLLEGE ROAD, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR
SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, WALAYAR BRANCH,
WALAYAR POST-678 624, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2025:KER:39911
W.A No.253 of 2016
2
2 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL OFFICE,
MUMBAI-400 001.
ADDL.R3 STATE BANK OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,WALAYAR
BRANCH,WALAYAR POST-678 624. PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
(ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14.12.2022 IN
I.A.1/2022 IN WA 253/2016).
BY ADVS.
SHRI.R.S.KALKURA
SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SHRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SHRI.RAJA KANNAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.06.2025, THE COURT ON 10.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:39911
W.A No.253 of 2016
3
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
2. The present writ appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala
High Court Act, 1958 has been filed assailing the judgment dated
11.02.2015 passed in WP(C) No.32220 of 2007 whereby the
petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed.
3. The writ petition was filed by the appellants praying for
the following reliefs:
"i) To declare that the petitioners and the owners of the
agricultural properties mentioned in this writ petition
are entitled to the distress benefits under Ext.P4
relief package scheme.
ii) To pass a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 and to
direct the 1st respondent to give distress benefits to
the petitioners.
iii) To pass a writ of mandamus directing the first
respondent to recalculate the entire loan amount,
interest, penal interest from the respective date of
availing of agricultural loans to the petitioners and
other farmers mentioned in this writ petition and
refund the entire excess amount paid by the
petitioners"
2025:KER:39911
W.A No.253 of 2016
4. The 2nd respondent-Reserve Bank of India issued circular
No.RPCD.PLFS.NO.BC.31/05.04.02/2006-07 dated 18.10.2006 for
mitigating the distress of farmers in the 25 districts of the State of
Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala. The said circular included
three districts of Kerala namely, Wayanad, Palakkad and
Kasaragod, for a package of relief measures for the debt stressed
farmers. The appellants, mother and daughter, along with others
entered into Ext.P1 agreement to manage their individual
agricultural property jointly, to conduct joint agricultural
operations and to share the benefits thereof among themselves.
For this purpose, the appellants availed financial assistance from
the 1st respondent Bank. Since their agricultural activities failed
to generate profits, the repayment of the loans fell into default.
The 1st respondent initiated action for recovery of the amounts
that were outstanding. Finally, the appellants availed the benefit
of One Time Settlement (OTS) and paid off the entire amount due
to the Bank. The account was closed on 21.12.2006. After the
payment of the amount, the appellants came to know that Ext.P4
2025:KER:39911
W.A No.253 of 2016
circular has been issued to mitigate the distress of the farmers.
Therefore, the appellants approached the 1st respondent Bank
seeking the benefit of the distress package. When no response
was received, the appellants preferred writ petition before this
Court on the ground that they are eligible for the benefit of the
distress package since they are agriculturists engaged in
agricultural operations in Palakkad District which is a specified
area in the circular. However, vide the order impugned in the writ
petition, the 1st respondent rejected the claim of the appellants on
the ground that the matter was taken up with the Reserve Bank of
India and it is informed that the firms and companies are not
eligible for the relief under the package. The writ petition filed by
the appellants came to be finally decided on 11.02.2015.
Challenging the said judgment, the present writ appeal has been
filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that
though the appellants have entered into a partnership deed, they
are performing agricultural operations collectively instead of
2025:KER:39911
W.A No.253 of 2016
individually in the name of EASO GARDENS, only to facilitate
agricultural operations collectively and effectively and also to
obtain maximum agricultural returns. Therefore, there is no
justification to deny the package relief for the distress farmers
and they are entitled to get the relief as per Ext.P4.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narayan
Bhimji Vadangale and another v. Hukumchand Chunilal
Thole and another [1992 KHC 770] to contend that a
partnership firm being an inanimate person, it cannot be said that
it could not cultivate the land personally and therefore, cannot be
an agriculturist or non agriculturist. It was held that the
cultivation of land by partners constitutes personal cultivation by
firm.
7. Drawing analogy from the aforesaid judgment, learned
counsel submitted that the basic activity of the partnership firm is
farming and in the absence of specific conditions in the circular,
the claim could not have been denied. The learned Single Judge
2025:KER:39911
W.A No.253 of 2016
has wrongly come to the conclusion that the appellants would not
be entitled for the benefits of Ext.P4 package. Holding that the
benefits of Ext.P4 package are intended to ameliorate the
conditions of individual farmers who are badly affected by natural
disasters, and the firms like that of the appellants carrying on
agricultural activities and other commercial enterprises cannot be
held entitled to the benefit of such scheme, dismissed the writ
petition. Hence this appeal.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
vehemently opposed the prayer. It is submitted that financial
assistance was sanctioned to the partnership firm along with
agricultural cash credit facility. As per the deed of partnership,
the object of the firm was mainly commercial though relating to
agriculture. The loan was sanctioned to the partnership firm for
purchase of vehicles, machinery etc. which cannot be said to be
agricultural operations. One Time Settlement was arrived
between the parties and an amount of around Rs.24 lakhs was
written off and the balance amount was remitted by the
2025:KER:39911
W.A No.253 of 2016
appellants on 21.12.2006. It is only after the One Time
Settlement, the appellants have raised the present contention
that they are entitled to the benefit of Ext.P4 distress package.
Learned counsel also contended that the distress package cannot
be claimed as of right, moreover, particularly when the account
stood closed at an earlier point of time. Even the 1st respondent
Bank got clarification from the Reserve Bank of India. After the
claim was submitted by the appellants, the Reserve Bank of India,
vide Ext.P7 dated 26.09.2007, had clarified that the captioned
package as advised vide circular dated 18.10.2006 is applicable to
farmers only. The firms and companies are not eligible for relief
under the package. He further submitted that as per the
partnership deed, the object of the appellants was to develop agro
based industries for extraction and sale of oils, edible, industrial,
aromatic and perfumes and to develop dairy farms, poultry farms,
better breeds of cattle etc. The object even included conduct of
charitable homes. The total capital of the firm contributed by the
partners was initially Rs.1,08,30,000/-. The loan extended by the
2025:KER:39911
W.A No.253 of 2016
1st respondent included purchase of a Tata Sumo car, digging
wells, construction of buildings, machines and equipments. That
would show that the loans were availed not merely for agricultural
operations but for other purposes which amount to commercial
activities. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said
that there is any infirmity in the stand adopted by the
1st respondent that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of
Ext.P4 distress package which is made only for the agriculturist
alone. The learned Single Judge has not committed any error in
dismissing the writ petition. Therefore, the present writ appeal
also deserves to be dismissed.
9. Heard both sides.
10. So far as the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Narayan Bhimji Vadangale (supra) is
concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present
case inasmuch as in that case the individuals could not cultivate
land personally due to their incapacity. However, after forming a
partnership firm purely agricultural activities took place.
2025:KER:39911
W.A No.253 of 2016
Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that the
cultivation of land by partners would constitute personal
cultivation by firms. In the present case, as stated herein, the
loan was sanctioned for various commercial activities apart from
agricultural activities. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment would
have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case.
So far as the application of Ext.P4 is concerned, the same would
apply only to the agriculturists who are small farmers and are
badly affected by natural disasters and not for the benefit of such
persons like the appellants who are individual farmers holding
large extent of land. Even the 2nd respondent Reserve Bank of
India has clarified that firms and companies are not eligible for
relief under Ext.P4 package. So, no benefit can be extended to
the appellants. The said clarification is also not under challenge in
the writ petition.
11. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case and the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge,
2025:KER:39911
W.A No.253 of 2016
we hold that the learned Single Judge is right in dismissing the
writ petition.
Accordingly, finding no merits in the appeal, the same is
hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M
JUDGE
smp
