SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(Ker) 186

Judges : V.P.GOPALAN NAMBIYAR,G.BALAGANGADHARAN NAIR
STATE OF KERALA - Appellant
Versus
UNIVERSAL MARINE AGENCIES - Respondent
Case No : W. A. No. 3 of 1978
Decided On : 11/07/1979
Advocates Appeared :
C.K. Sivasankara Panicker; For Appellant T.L. Viswanatha Iyer; For Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is that coercive steps for revenue recovery should not be initiated without an appropriate adjudication of liability, especially in cases involving unliquidated damages.

Headnote:

Revenue Recovery Act - Lease Agreement - Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, Indian Revenue Recovery Act, 1890

Fact of the Case:

The State of Kerala and the Director of Fisheries appealed against a judgment allowing the respondent's writ petition and restraining the recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,974.94 under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 or the Indian Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. The case involved a lease agreement for an Ice-plant Storage and Freezing plant at Azheekode.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that coercive steps for revenue recovery should not be set in motion against the respondent without an appropriate adjudication of liability. It also noted that some of the items of claim were not specifically covered by the agreement, and there was a variance in the date of surrender of the plant. The court held that the demand raised by the Government was unjustified and improper and without jurisdiction.

Issues: The issues included the interpretation of the lease agreement, the applicability of revenue recovery provisions, and the adjudication of liability for damages.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles stating that a claim for unliquidated damages does not give rise to a debt until the liability is adjudicated and damages assessed by a decree or order of a court or other adjudicatory authority. It emphasized that damages for breach of contract are not a claim for a sum presently due and payable until determined by a court.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the learned judge was set aside, directing that the original petition would stand dismissed.

Judgment :-

1. This appeal is by the State of Kerala and the Director of Fisheries, Trivandrum, against the judgment of a learned judge of this Court, allowing the respondent's writ petition and restraining the appellants and the Deputy Director, the Assistant Director, the Sub Inspector of Fisheries and the District Collector, Trichur, from taking steps for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,974.94 mentioned in Ext. P5 notice, under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 or the Indian Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. The learned judge's judgment is reported (vide 1977 KLT. 949). An Ice-plant Storage and Freezing plant at Azheekode was leased to the writ petitioner under Ext P1 agreement dated 5-5-1970 for a period of one year. The rent was Rs. 30,001/-. Rs. 15,000/-had been paid on 7-5-1970 and the balance was payable on or before 23-11-1970. It was actually paid on 30-1-1971. Electric charges had to be paid by the lessee. As the charges were not so paid, the electric supply was disconnected on 30-3-1971. On 20-3-1971 by Ext. P2 letter from the 3rd petitioner, (the Managing Director of the 1st petitioner), the Director of Fisheries was informed that the petitioner was unable to continue the lease till the end of the period of agreement, and proposing to hand over the plant at any time before the end of the month. The 3rd petitioner complained

of harassment from the local officials. As articles were inside the factory, the 5th respondent (to the OP.), the Sub Inspector of Fisheries put a lock on the factory and listed the articles (vide Ext. P3). On 14-5-1971, the writ petitioner and the respondents came to the ice-plant. Rs. 13,194.64 was estimated to be the arrears towards the electric charges and it was agreed that the petitioner would pay the amount. On 28-5-1971 the petitioner actually paid the amount and the electric supply was reconnected. On 4-6-1971 the plant was test-run. The plant had to be rectified. But this was not done. The writ petitioner was issued a notice for the security amount of Rs. 5,010/-and an additional claim of Rs. 5,000/-. The mistakes in the plant were rectified. The factory was re-auctioned for Rs. 60,000/-. On 9-2-1974, the expresses and the loss caused to the Government by not returning the factory on 7-5-1971, were calculated at Rs. 29,974.94. After adjusting the security amount of Rs. 5,000/-a notice was issued for Rs. 24,974.94. Revenue Recovery Proceedings for the said amount were proposed to be taken. By Ext. P4 reply dated 14th August, 1973, the writ petitioner had stated that the entire lease amount of Rs.30,001/- was paid in full and the plant was surrendered on 31st May, 1971, that subsequently the plant was leased out by the Government to another party, and that the security amount of Rs. 5,000/-had not been returned to the writ-petitioner. Ext. P5 notice of demand dated 9-2-1974 under the Revenue Recovery Act was issued by the Tahsildar, Mangalore, threatening revenue recovery proceedings for the amount of Rs. 24,974.94 that was due. It was at that stage that the writ petitioner approached this Court for redress. These were the facts according to the appellants.

2. The learned judge referred to Ext. P1 contract, and in particular to Clause.16 of the said agreement which reads as follows:

"16. The lessee do further agree that all sums found due to the lessor under or by virtue of this agreement shall be recoverable from the security amount and the balance, if any shall be recoverable from the lessee and their properties movable and immovable under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being in force as though they were arrears of land revenue or in such other manner as the lessor may deem fit."

Before the learned judge, it was the Government's contention that the above clause would attract S.68(1) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act 1968, according to which all monies due from any person to the Government under written agreement, are recoverable as arrears of pub


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top