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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13280

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
MUTHU P.M. – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 24725 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.AMBADI MURALI, SHRI.NIDHIN K.N., SHRI.NEERAJ T.N., SHRI.GOPIKRISHNAN R.
For the Respondents: SHRI.JACOB PAUL, SHRI.SURESH SUKUMAR, SMT.K.P.RENJINI, SMT.LIRA A.B.

Court upheld temporary suspension of recovery actions pending Tribunal's decisions on the petitioner's applications.

Headnote:This judgment concerns a writ petition challenging revenue recovery actions related to O.P. (M.V.) No.791 of 2012 from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, on grounds of lack of notice. The court determined the validity of the petitioner's claims and ordered a temporary halt to further recovery actions pending Tribunal decisions. Issues included jurisdiction and notice procedures associated with the recovery process. The court upheld that all recovery efforts are to be suspended while the Tribunal considers the pending applications, maintaining the status quo of the appellant's situation until a final decision is reached.

Table of Content
1. challenge to recovery actions on lack of notice. (Para 1)
2. interim order for compliance with deposit. (Para 2)
3. court directed tribunal to decide pending applications. (Para 3)
4. recovery proceedings to be kept in abeyance. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges the Revenue Recovery Act ions initiated for recovering the amount awarded in O.P. (M.V.) No.791 of 2012 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The petitioner contends that they did not get any notice or summons from the Tribunal and came to know about the same only when the notice was received under the provisions of the . This is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company by pointing out Ext.P1 award, which refers to the appearance of the petitioner in I.A. No.5569 of 2018 and I.A. No.5570 of 2018, the applications for producing the permit, and the fitness certificate.

2. This Court had passed an interim order directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as a condition for the grant of stay. It is submitted by the petitioner that the same has been complied with.

3. Under such circumstances, taking note of the fact that Exts.P3 and P4 applications to set aside the exparte award with an application to condone the delay in filing the same are pending consideration before the Tribunal, there will be a direction to the Tribunal concerned to pass orders on the same in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

4. Till orders are passed as directed above, all further recovery proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. Needless to say, the amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court will be subject to the final orders to be passed by the Tribunal. All the contentions of the parties are left open.

5. The Registry is directed to communicate this judgment to the Tribunal concerned forthwith.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

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