Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.35 seconds)
Satheesh Chandran Nair P.S vs Mini Panicker on 7 September, 2012 cites

T.V. Anandan And Anr. vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 6 July, 1981

28. There is yet another contention for the purchaser/petitioner in W.P.(C)No.16852 of 2009 that the amount payable by the defaulter to the KSFE does not constitute arrears of public revenue and as such, Section 44 itself cannot have any application to the case in hand. There is a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in A.K. Nanu and others vs. State of Kerala an others (1987 (2) KLT 921) and also by a Single Bench of this Court in Anandan vs. State of Kerala [2009(4) KLT SN 79 (C.No.74)], that merely for the reason that an institution has been notified under Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act, enabling the institution to recover the dues invoking the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act, the nature of the debt will not get automatically converted into 'arrears of public revenue due on land'. The W.P. ) Nos.16187 OF 2007, 16852 OF 2009, 21876 OF 2009, 15549 and 37390 of 2010 39 observations made by this Court in the said decisions are in the particular context and not with reference to applicability of Section 44. What Section 71 stipulates is that, once a notification is issued by the Government thereunder, in public interest, all the provisions of the Act shall be applicable to such recovery. In other words, what is provided under the Statute for recovering the arrears of public revenue due on land could be deployed/made use of, for recovering the dues payable to the said institutions notified under Section 71, as if it were arrears of public revenue due on land . Chapter III, where Sections 34 and 44 get enlisted, deals with the procedure for attachment and sale of the immovable property, which necessarily is in the course of the recovery proceedings contemplated under the Act and as such, the scope and application of the Act as to the procedure for recovering the debt invoking the machinery thereunder, as understood by the purchaser/petitioner in W.P. (C)No.16852 of 2009 is quite wrong and misconceived.
Kerala High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Spl. Tahsildar vs Vasu on 24 August, 2006

23. Coming to the scope of demand to be served under W.P. ) Nos.16187 OF 2007, 16852 OF 2009, 21876 OF 2009, 15549 and 37390 of 2010 32 Section 7 or 34, such a course is stipulated as mandatory before effecting any attachment of the movables or immovables, as the case may be. Any attachment of the movables without serving a demand notice showing the particulars as specified under Section 7 cannot result in a valid attachment. Same is the position with regard to the immovable property, in view of the clear mandate under Section 34, as to the procedure to be complied with before effecting the attachment. But then, the question is whether any attachment is necessary to invoke the power and procedure under Section 44, which can only be answered in the negative, in view of the law declared by a Division Bench of this Court as per the decision reported in 2006(4) KLT 557 (Spl. Tahsildar v. Vasu). The only requirement is whether the stipulations under Section 44 are satisfied, so as to attract the relevant provision.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 9 - K Joseph - Full Document

State Of Kerala & Anr vs Radhamany on 23 August, 1996

26. As observed by the Apex Court in paragraph '5' of (1996) 6 SCC 287 (State of Kerala and another vs. Radhamany), each sub-section under Section 44 is independent of the transaction dealt with therein. The Apex Court has held that, to attract sub-section(2) of Section 44, the crucial question is, as to the date on which the the 'arrears had fallen due' and when the sale has been effected. Admittedly, in the instant case, W.P. ) Nos.16187 OF 2007, 16852 OF 2009, 21876 OF 2009, 15549 and 37390 of 2010 36 though the sale was effected only on 03.01.2007, the arrears had fallen due much earlier, as described in the 'table' given in paragraph III of the additional counter affidavit dated14.07.2012 filed by the KSFE and also as discernible from Exts.R8(a) to R8(e). The distinction between Sub sections (2) and (3) of Section 44 is that, in the case of the latter, if the conveyance is effected to a 'near relative' (as defined in the 'explanation') or for grossly inadequate consideration, there is a presumption, until the contrary is proved, that such transfer is made 'with intent to defeat or delay the recovery of arrears'; thus enabling the concerned authority to proceed against the property as if such transfer had not taken place .
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next