MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
C. S. VARKEY – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.
1. The petitioner was the owner of a stage carriage bus bearing Registration No. KEK 6397. In respect of the contributions due under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund, a final determination order dated 04.08.1995 for the period 1992-93 for Rs. 8,342/- was served on the petitioner. Later, the District Executive Officer (DEO) of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘Board’ for brevity) issued a requisition dated 09.11.1995 in Form 24 under Section 69 (2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RR Act’) to the District Collector for recovery of the said dues. Pursuant thereto, the District Collector issued a demand notice dated 08.03.1996 under Section 7 of the RR Act.
2. For the periods 1993-94 and 1994-95, the Board issued Ext. P1 final determination order dated 31.01.1996 for an amount of Rs. 19,020/- which was followed by a requisition letter of the DEO of the Board dated 29.03.1996 and demand notice of the District Collector dated 12.07.1996 under Section 7 of the RR Act.
3. The petitioner challenged the final determination orders referred above and the Gov
Halimathu Beevi vs. State of Kerala
Income Tax Officer, Kolar and Another vs. Seghu Buchiah Setty
M/s Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Mohan Wahi vs. Commissioner, Income Tax, Varanasi
Molly Soman W/o Soman vs. Tahasildar (RR) Adoor Taluk Office, Adoor
Philips India Ltd. and Another vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Calcutta and Others
Raveendran Nair vs. State of Kerala
Article 137 of Limitation Act reads as description of application.
The authority under the Minimum Wages Act must provide an opportunity to be heard before issuing orders, but failure to appear after proper notice results in valid ex parte orders, and delays in chal....
Debt is not the same thing as right of action for its recovery – While debt is right in creditor with correlative duty on debtor right of action for recovery is in nature of a legal power.
Recovery Officers cannot adjudicate unadjudicated claims during execution proceedings under the RDDB Act.
Acknowledgments of debt reset the limitation period for recovery proceedings, and the SARFAESI Act does not bar revenue recovery actions under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.