A ALAVIKUTTY Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contention of the petitioner are two fold and they are,

(2.) A Divison Bench of this Court in Bank of India v. Barry Sebastian, 2013 1 KerLT 645 has held that retail trade is to be treated as falling under the priority sectors. Advances granted to private retail traders with credit limits not exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs forms part of the development scheme. The loan application [Ext.R2(a)] shows that the petitioner has availed the loan for the purpose of his business only. The source of repayment is none other than the income or profit from the business. It is not possible to dissect computer loan and personal loan as alleged. The computer and car is part of the developmental activities to augment the business for which the loan has been advanced. The Bank is within its powers to invoke the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of dues.

(3.) It is often said that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. The Bank has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the requisition for revenue recovery was made in time. Renewal documents dated 1.3.2005, 26.2.2008, 2.2.2009 and 3.11.2010 are relied on by the Bank. The genuineness of those documents are to be considered by the civil court only. The question whether the remedy has become barred by limitation or not can be adjudicated only in a civil suit. I leave open that remedy of the petitioner. amount due under Ext.P1 notice in six equal monthly instalments starting from 1.7.2013. The coercive proceedings shall be put on hold if the petitioner complies with the conditions in time.