Nabeesath Missiriya.T.B vs State Of Kerala on 19 January, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Nabeesath Missiriya.T.B vs State Of Kerala on 19 January, 2010

Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15097 of 2009(F)


1. NABEESATH MISSIRIYA.T.B,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY
                       ...       Respondent

2. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,

4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE

                For Respondent  :SRI.R.S.KALKURA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :19/01/2010

 O R D E R
                   P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
             ..............................................................................

             W.P(C) Nos. 15097, 15129, 15130 &

                                  15131 OF 2009

              .........................................................................
                     Dated this the 19th January, 2010



                                   J U D G M E N T

All these Writ Petitions are filed challenging the action taken by the KFC, invoking the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act, for realization of the amount due from the petitioners, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Unique Butyl Tube Industries (P) Ltd. vs. U.P. Financial Corporation and others reported in [ 2003 (2) SCC 455 ].

2. The case put forth by the petitioners is strongly rebutted from the part of the respondents by placing reliance on the judgment rendered in Usman vs. Kerala Financial Corporation (2007 (2) KLT 604), whereby it has been clearly held that when proceedings of takeover are initiated under SFC Act, simultaneous proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act are also permissible, by virtue of the specific provisions as W.P(C) Nos. 15097, 15129, 15130 & 15131 OF 2009 2 contained in the State Financial Corporations Act ( SFC Act) enabling such exercise. The case of the petitioners, as projected in the Writ Petitions is that the said decision rendered by the Division Bench has already been subjected to challenge by filing SLP before the Supreme Court and the matter is pending consideration, simultaneously granting interim stay.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the KFC submitted that the dictum in 2007 (2) KLT 604 has become final since the SLP preferred against the verdict was dismissed as withdrawn, as per the order dated 03.11.2009. A true copy of the order passed by the Apex Court in this regard was also placed for consideration of this Court .

4. In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioners cannot successfully agitate the matter any further placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in 2003 (2) SCC 455, which has been referred to by the Division Bench and explained in 2007(2) KLT 604, declaring the law holding that the respondent KFC is very much justified in resorting to such W.P(C) Nos. 15097, 15129, 15130 & 15131 OF 2009 3 coercive steps, invoking the provisions under the Revenue Recovery Act as well by virtue of specific enabling provision under the SFC Act.

5. This being the position, this Court does not find any merit in any of these Writ Petitions and hence interference is declined.

All the Writ Petitions are dismissed accordingly.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court