Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
NEELIMA PALAKKAD OIL MILLS (P) LTD – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 1407/2012
Finance - Writ Petition - Revenue Recovery Proceedings - Act Section List - The court directed the financial institution to consider the petitioner’s one-time settlement application and suspended further recovery actions pending that decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a company, defaulted on a financial obligation, prompting revenue recovery actions. They applied for a one-time settlement, paying 10% of the amount due. The application was pending consideration by the financial institution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the financial institution acknowledged the pending application and agreed to consider it in their upcoming meeting, implying a need to hold off on recovery actions until a decision was made.
Issues: Whether the recovery proceedings should be suspended pending the decision on the one-time settlement application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that pending matters, such as the petitioner's application for one-time settlement, justify the suspension of revenue recovery actions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, directing the financial institution to consider the application and stay recovery actions.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a company, which has availed of financial assistance from the 1st respondent. Default was committed and by Ext.P2, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated. At that stage, petitioner made an application to the 1st respondent for settling the liability under one time settlement scheme. It is also submitted that in terms of the conditions of the scheme, 10% of the amount proposed also has been remitted. The application is pending consideration of the 1st respondent and in view of the recovery action, the writ petition has been filed.
2. Learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent confirms that an application has been received from the petitioner and also submits that their application will be considered in the next Board meeting of the 1st respondent, which is scheduled to be held in the last week of February, 2012.
3. From the above submissions made by both sides, it is obvious that the application of the petitioner is pending consideration of the 1st respondent. In view of this, I direct that WPC No.1407/12 :2 :
the 1st respondent shall consider the OTS application made by the petitioner in the Board meeting scheduled in February 2012 and that until a decision is taken on their application, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 revenue recovery notice will be kept in abeyance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp
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
