IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J.
Benzy Martin, W/o. Martin Sebastian - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Secretary, Department Of Revenue Secretariat, Trivandrum and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) Nos.35389 of 2023 and 17839 and 17840 of 2024
Decided On : 16-08-2024
Key Points: - The KSFE can proceed with revenue recovery under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act despite Chit Funds Act arbitration provisions. (!) (!) (!) - Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act authorizes declaring an institution (KSFE) for public revenue recovery; the act treats dues as public revenue through a deeming fiction. (!) (!) (!) - The Chit Funds Act provides a separate arbitration mechanism under Section 64; however, it does not nullify the applicability of the Revenue Recovery Act to recover amounts due to KSFE. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court cites that disputes under the Chit Funds Act do not prevent recovery actions under the Revenue Recovery Act; writ petitions dismissed. (!) (!) - Interplay between two statutes is that both operate in distinct fields: dispute resolution vs. public revenue recovery. (!) (!) - Prior jurisprudence referenced: Premanandan v. State of Kerala regarding self-contained nature of Revenue Recovery Act and rights against guarantors pending arbitrator’s order. (!)
JUDGMENT :
N. NAGARESH, J.
The petitioners are persons against whom the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited has issued notice under the Kerala REVENUE RECOVERY ACT , 1968 for recovery of alleged dues from the petitioners. The petitioners seek to declare that the KSFE Limited is not entitled to take recourse to the provisions of the Kerala REVENUE RECOVERY ACT , 1968 for recovering amounts covered under Exts.P1 and P2 notices through the machinery of respondents 2 and 3 as it is hit by the provisions of the CHIT FUNDS ACT , 1982.
2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35389/2023 has been issued with notice of attachment under Section 36 of the Kerala REVENUE RECOVERY ACT , 1968. The notice indicated that an amount of ₹40,77,403/- along with interest of 12%, and 5% processing fee / collection fee is payable by the petitioner. The KSFE is the Requisitioning Authority under the REVENUE RECOVERY ACT . The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.17839 and 17840 of 2024 are also persons upon whom notices have been issued by the KSFE Limited invoking the provisions of the Kerala REVENUE RECOVERY ACT , 1968.
3. The petitioners state that the notice issued at the instance of the KSFE Limited under Section 36 of the Kerala REVENUE RECOVERY ACT is not legally maintainable. According to the petitioners, the 4th respondent being engaged in the business of chitty, is governed by the CHIT FUNDS ACT , 1982. Chapter 12 of the CHIT FUNDS ACT deals with the disputes and arbitration. Section 64 of the CHIT FUNDS ACT states that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the management of a chit business shall be referred by any of the parties to the dispute, to the Registrar for arbitration. Section 64 (3) provides that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in sub-section (1).
4. According to the petitioners, it is clear from Section 64 that the remedy available for the 4th respondent is to approach the Registrar and refer the matter for arbitration. An adjudication with respect to any dispute relating to chit fund business can only be done by the Registrar through arbitration and not by the District Collector under the REVENUE RECOVERY ACT .
5. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s. Sriram Chits and Investments Private Limited v. Union of India and others [1993 Supp (4) SCC 226], the counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the Chit Fund Act in pith and substance deals with special contract and consequently falls within Entry 7 of List III of Schedule 7 to the Constitution of India.
6. According to the petitioners, this Court has held in the judgment in State of Kerala and others v. M/s. Mar Appraem Kuri Company Limited and another [ (2012) 7 SCC 106 ] that the intention of the Parliament in enacting CHIT FUNDS ACT was clearly to occupy the entire field falling in Entry 7 of List III. The 1982 Act was enacted as a Central Legislation to ensure uniformity in the provisions applicable to chit fund institutions throughout the country.
7. The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited filed counter affidavits in the writ petitions. The KSFE Limited stated that when the petitioners failed to repay the amounts due to the KSFE Limited, the matter was referred to the Special Deputy Tahsildar under Section 69(2) of the REVENUE RECOVERY ACT . The petitioners were served with Sections 7 and 34 notices. The petitioners did not raise any grievance then. It is much later when the Section 36 notice was issued that the petitioners have challenged the proceedings.
8. The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited stated that Section 64 of the CHIT FUNDS ACT only prescribes the method of resolving disputes relating to conduct of chit business. If the subscriber or anyone claiming under him has got any grievance regarding the conduct of the chit, he / she can make a reference to the Arbitrator for resolving the disp
AI
The applicability of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for collection of dues takes precedence over arbitration provisions in the Chit Funds Act, permitting recovery of amounts designated as public rev....
The court established that the Chit Funds Act and the Revenue Recovery Act serve different purposes, allowing recovery of dues under the latter despite arbitration provisions in the former.
The court ruled that no pre-adjudication is necessary for revenue recovery, affirming separate legal frameworks of the RR Act and the Chit Funds Act.
Bar contained in sub-section (3) of Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act has no application to any suit or other proceedings filed before the civil court, in respect of dispute relating to any chit start....
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.
Judicial decisions must include clear reasoning to uphold transparency and justice, particularly in administrative and quasi-judicial matters, as supported by established legal principles.
The court clarified the legal framework for recovering dues under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, emphasizing compliance with statutory limits.
Statutory Provision – Since the amount has been collected in accordance with the mandate of the statutory provision, it cannot be said that such collection was unreasonable in any manner.
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.