High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-07-20Writ petition disposed of with directions.

Cris Thomas and Thomas Jacob v. District Collector, Collectorate, Revenue District of Kottayam, Deputy Tahasildar (Revenue Recovery), Village Officer, Manimala Village, Manimala and The Federal Bank Ltd., Manimala Branch, and The Authorized Officer under SARFAESI Act

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 21343 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2023-07-20
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is disposed of with the following directions: (1) The admitted amount of Rs. 4,75,000 shall be paid in ten equal monthly installments commencing 16.08.2023; (2) If there is a default in two consecutive installments, the respondents may proceed in accordance with law; (3) If the admitted amount is paid as directed, recovery based on Exhibits P4 and P4(a) shall be deferred; (4) The petitioner may submit a representation regarding the disputed amount within one month from today; the 4th respondent will issue a statement of accounts and, after hearing the petitioner, pass orders expeditiously, within two months from receipt of the representation, considering the Ashokan V.P. dictum; (5) The bank is free to collect future interest during the installment period.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Cris Thomas
Thomas Jacob

Respondents

The District Collector, Collectorate, Revenue District of Kottayam, Kottayam
The Deputy Tahasildar (Revenue Recovery), Taluk Office, Kanjirappally Taluk, Kottayam District
The Village Officer, Manimala Village, Manimala, Kottayam District
The Federal Bank Ltd, Manimala Branch, Kottayam District
The Authorized Officer under SARFAESI Act, The Federal Bank Ltd., Manimala Branch, Kottayam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Manu Ramachandran
• M. Kiranlal
• R. Rajesh (Varkala)
• Sameer M Nair
• Geethu Krishnan
• Sailakshmi Menon
• Abhishek Johnson

Counsels for Respondents

• Mohan Jacob George
• P. V. Parvathy
• Reena Thomas
• Nigi George

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition, filed in the Kerala High Court, challenges recovery actions taken by a bank under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act in connection with a vehicle loan default. The petitioners, Cris Thomas and Thomas Jacob, assert that although a notice and sale of the vehicle occurred under the bank’s action, the admitted arrears leave a balance disputed at approximately Rs 4.75 lakh, while the bank claims a current due of about Rs 5.31 lakh. The petition seeks an instalment facility to repay the admitted amount and pleads that recovery proceedings be kept in abeyance during installment payments. The court notes the sale proceeds of Rs 5.47 lakh against an alleged Rs 12.10 lakh liability and frames a mechanism to address both the admitted portion and the disputed balance. The bench considers granting installments on the admitted amount, conditioning future interest payments, and directing the bank to issue a statement of accounts and decide the disputed portion after an opportunity of hearing, guided by the Ashokan V.P. dictum on expeditious action. The order ultimately directs phased payment, continuation of future interest, and a timely appraisal of the disputed balance within a two-month window after representation, while preserving the creditor’s rights under RR and SARFAESI regimes.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 7 of the Revenue Recovery ActSection 34 of the Revenue Recovery ActSection 34(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery ActKerala Revenue Recovery ActSecuritisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act), 2002

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ashokan V.P. v. Tahsildar (RR), Vatakara, Kozhikode and others (2020 KHC 2172) – dictum on expeditious disposal of representations and service-charge considerations.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners challenge the recovery actions arising from a vehicle loan default, contending that despite the sale of the vehicle, the balance claimed by the bank is disputed. They seek an instalment facility to repay the admitted arrears of Rs. 4,75,000 in ten equal monthly installments starting 16 August 2023 and request that RR proceedings be kept in abeyance during the installment period. They propose to file a representation to account for the disputed balance, with the bank providing a statement of accounts and deciding the dispute in accordance with law. They rely on the court’s previous decision in Ashokan V.P. v. Tahsildar (RR) for ensuring expeditious handling of representations, and request timely action on the disputed amount, including future interest considerations during installments.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the current due is around Rs 5,30,904, though the petitioners assert the admitted amount is Rs 4,75,000. They emphasize the bank’s entitlement to recover and argue that, if necessary, the debt recovery process should proceed under the statutory framework. They urge that the disputed balance be resolved promptly, but maintain the right to pursue recovery for any amount not included in the admitted sum, including continuing interest as per credit terms and applicable law.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ashokan V.P. v. Tahsildar (RR), Vatakara, Kozhikode and others	2020 KHC 2172	Positive	Cited for its dicta on expeditious handling of representations and related service-charge considerations, guiding the court’s timeline for decision on the disputed balance.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Cris Thomas and Thomas Jacob v. District Collector, Collectorate, Revenue District of Kottayam, Deputy Tahasildar (Revenue Recovery), Village Officer, Manimala Village, Manimala and The Federal Bank Ltd., Manimala Branch, and The Authorized Officer under SARFAESI Act and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

WP(C) NO. 21343 OF 2023 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 21343 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 CRIS THOMAS AGED 36 YEARS S/O THOMAS JACOB, KOLLARATH HOUE, KARIKKATTOOR P.O, MANIMALA VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686544 2 THOMAS JACOB AGED 65 YEARS S/O CHACKO, KOLLARATH HOUE, KARIKKATTOOR P.O, MANIMALA VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686544 BY ADVS. MANU RAMACHANDRAN M.KIRANLAL R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SAMEER M NAIR GEETHU KRISHNAN SAILAKSHMI MENON ABHISHEK JOHNSON ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, REVENUE DISTRICT OF KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002 2 DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686555 WP(C) NO. 21343 OF 2023 2 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MANIMALA VILLAGE, MANIMALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686544 4 THE FEDERAL BANK LTD MANIMALA BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 686543 5 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER SARFAESI ACT THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., MANIMALA BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686543 BY ADVS. Mohan Jacob George P.V.PARVATHY (P-41)(K/000036/1991) REENA THOMAS(R-364) NIGI GEORGE(K/1169/2012) ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 21343 OF 2023 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------------W.P.(C.) No. 21343 of 2023 -------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of July, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** ## The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : _1. “To issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or direction directing the 2[nd] respondent to grant easy monthly installments facility to repay the entire arrears in loan vide no. 19506600000132 of Federal Bank, Branch, in the manner fixed by this Hon'ble Court;_ _2. To issue a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to keep in abeyance the proceedings in Exhibit P4 and Exhibit P4(a), during the time the petitioner pays the arrears in installment with the 4[th] respondent bank, in the interest of justice;_ _3. To issue a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents to consider Exhibit P5 representation as per law at the earliest and within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice;_ _4. To issue a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ or_ WP(C) NO. 21343 OF 2023 4 _order or direction directing the respondents 4 & 5 to issue the entire statement of account of loan vide no. 19506600000132 of Federal Bank, Manimala Branch, at the earliest and within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice;_ _5. Dispense with the filing of English translation of Exhibits in vernacular;_ _And_ _6. Issue such other orders or directions which deems necessary for the ends of justice and in the circumstances of the case.” [SIC]_ 2. The petitioner availed a vehicle loan from the 4[th] respondent. Admittedly, there is default in paying the loan amount. Now, Ext.P2 notice is issued for sale of the vehicle. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Ext.P2, the amount due as on 28.03.2023 is Rs.12,10,456/-. Thereafter, the vehicle was sold and the Bank obtained an amount of Rs.5,47,000/- as evident by Ext.P3. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the balance will be only about Rs.4,75,000/-, now, revenue recovery proceedings is initiated for an amount of Rs.5,09,039/-. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the WP(C) NO. 21343 OF 2023 5 learned Government Pleader. I also heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for 4[th] respondent. 4. The Standing Counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent submitted that the amount due as on today is Rs.5,30,904/-. This is disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the admitted amount is only Rs.4,75,000/-. If that is the case, the petitioner is bound to pay the admitted amount atleast. The petitioner seeks instalment facility to pay that amount. I think an instalment facility can be given to the admitted amount on condition that the petitioner will pay the future interest during the instalment period. As far as the balance amount is concerned, the petitioner is free to submit a representation before the 4[th] respondent. The counsel for the petitioner relied the judgment of this Court in _**Ashokan V.P.** v._ _**Tahsildar (RR), Vatakara, Kozhikode and others**_ [2020 KHC 2172] regarding the claim of service charge. That question also can be decided by the 4[th] respondent while deciding the representation. WP(C) NO. 21343 OF 2023 6 Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions : - 1) The petitioner is allowed to pay the admitted amount of Rs.4,75,000/- in ten equal monthly instalments starting from 16.08.2023. - 2) If there is any default of two consecutive instalments, the respondents are free to proceed in accordance with law. - 3) If the amount is paid as directed above, the recovery based on Exts.P4 and P4(a) shall be deferred. - 4) As far as the disputed amount is concerned, the petitioner is free to submit a representation before the 4[th] respondent within one month from today. If such a representation is received, the 4[th] respondent will issue a statement of accounts to the petitioner. - 5) If such a representation is received as directed above, the 4[th] respondent will consider the same and pass orders, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after adverting to the dictum WP(C) NO. 21343 OF 2023 7 laid down by this Court in _**Ashokan V.P.'s**_ case (supra) as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of the representation. - 6) The 4[th] respondent – Bank is free to collect the future interest also during the instalment period. **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS WP(C) NO. 21343 OF 2023 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21343/2023** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|THE TRUE COPY OF THE PANCHNAMA DATED| ||29.12.2022 PREPARED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT| ||AFTER TAKING OVER THE PETITIONER'S CAR| |Exhibit P2|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER VIDE| ||NO.KTMB/VBJ/SEPF/2146/2023 DATED| ||15.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO| ||THE PETITIONERS| |Exhibit P3|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER VIDE| ||NO.KTMB/VBJ/SEPF/2146/CRIS THOMAS DATED| ||30.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO| ||THE PETITIONERS| |Exhibit P4|THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY| ||NOTICE VIDE. NO.RRC NO.2023/4823/05 DATED| ||10.05.2023 UNDER S.7 OF THE RR ACT| |Exhibit P4 (a)|THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY| ||NOTICE VIDE. NO.RRC NO.2023/4823/05 DATED| ||10.05.2023 UNDER S.34 OF THE RR ACT| |Exhibit P5|THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED| ||21.06.2023 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS| ||UNDER S.34(2) OF THE KERALA REVENUE| ||RECOVERY ACT BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND| ||RESPONDENTS WITH COPY TO 3RD RESPONDENT| ||THROUGH EMAIL ON 22.06.2023| |Exhibit P5 (a)|THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT VIDE| ||NO.B4/541435/23 DATED 22.06.2023 ISSUED BY| ||THE OFFICE OF 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE| ||PETITIONERS|