Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the recovery proceedings were barred by limitation; (ii) whether the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act could be invoked to recover amounts due to the Kerala Financial Corporation in view of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
Issue (i): whether the recovery proceedings were barred by limitation.
Analysis: The loan agreements provided for repayment in monthly instalments ending on 10 February 1997. The revenue recovery steps were initiated in 1994-95, before the repayment period expired. On that factual basis, the demand could not be treated as a time-barred debt at the time proceedings were commenced.
Conclusion: The plea of limitation was rejected and the issue was decided against the appellant.
Issue (ii): whether the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act could be invoked to recover amounts due to the Kerala Financial Corporation in view of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
Analysis: Section 34(2) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 preserves the operation of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Section 32G of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 specifically authorises recovery of amounts due to a financial corporation as arrears of land revenue. Since arrears of land revenue are recoverable under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, the corporation was entitled to invoke that machinery. The earlier decision relied on by the appellant did not displace this statutory scheme in the presence of Section 32G.
Conclusion: The invocation of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act was upheld and the issue was decided against the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the revenue recovery proceedings failed in full, and the order under challenge was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing special statute expressly authorises recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue, the general recovery machinery may be invoked consistently with that statute, and a challenge based on the overriding provision of a later enactment will fail if the earlier special statute is expressly saved.