Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J
SHARMILA – Appellant
Versus
AUTHORISED OFFICER, DEPUTY TAHSILDHAR, REVENUE RECOVERY – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges revenue recovery notice. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner proposes installment plan for repayment. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court approves installment plan and conditions for payment. (Para 4) |
J U D G M E N T
1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P1 revenue recovery demand notice. The Petitioner has availed financial assistance from the Respondent No.2/Bank for purchasing a cow in the year 2019. The contention of the Petitioner is that, on account of reasons beyond her control, she could not regularly remit the instalment for repayment of the loan.
2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is prepared to pay the outstanding amount in reasonable monthly instalments.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent/Bank submitted that, as on today, the amount outstanding is Rs.1,46,666/- and the Petitioner can be given six instalments to liquidate the liability.
4. Considering the fact that the Petitioner has availed the loan for purchasing a cow, this Writ Petition is disposed of, permitting the Petitioner to clear the outstanding amount with accrued interest thereon in twelve equal monthly instalments starting
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
