High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 06 KL CK 0432

M/S.Swadiya Foods Represented By Managing Partner Aravindakshan K vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 28 June 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 12755 Of 2021

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 373 words

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J

1.

Petitioner has availed a loan from the Kerala Financial Corporation (the Corporation) for establishing a chicken processing plant. It is stated that

since the petitioner could not operate the plant profitably, the unit was sold by the petitioner after settling the liability of the Corporation. It is alleged

that despite settlement of the liability, the Corporation is not recalling the revenue recovery proceedings initiated earlier for realisation of the

outstanding liability in the loan account. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.

3.

The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submits that since proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act have been initiated prior to the

liquidation of the liability and demand notice has been issued under the Revenue Recovery Act to the petitioner in the said proceedings, the petitioner is

bound to pay recovery charges also to the authorities under the Revenue Recovery Act and it is since the petitioner has not paid the recovery charges

that the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act have so far not been recalled.

4.

On a query from the Court, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation conceded that since no steps other than issuance of the demand

notice has been taken by the authorities under the Revenue Recovery Act, the petitioner is liable to pay only 1% of the amount demanded from them

towards recovery charges.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to pay 1% of the amount demanded towards recovery charges.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to pay 1% of the amount demanded by the authorities under the Revenue

Recovery Act by way of recovery charges directly to the fifth respondent, and directing respondents 3 and 4 to recall the revenue recovery

proceedings initiated against the petitioner immediately on production of receipt evidencing payment of the recovery charges as directed above.

Needless to say, the Corporation shall also thereupon release the title deeds and other documents of the petitioner which have been furnished by way

of security, without delay.