LAWS(KER)-2007-1-310

SYNDICATE BANK Vs. S S SHERIFF

Decided On January 09, 2007
SYNDICATE BANK, PUNALUR BRANCH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A public sector bank has come up in appeal feeling aggrieved about the judgment dated 07-01-2005 rendered in O.P.No.5184 of 2001. The bank was the 4th respondent therein, and had advanced a loan to the petitioner in the Original Petition (Ist respondent herein). When the repayment was not forthcoming, they had filed a suit and obtained a decree on 20-05-1989. E.P.No.95 of 1991 thereafter had been filed and it is pending before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara. Revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner thereafter. A copy of the notice issued in the year 2001 shows the amount of arrears as Rs.3,44,021/-, which is produced as Ext.P2.

(2.) Such proceedings had been subjected to challenge by the petitioner, contending that after obtaining a decree it was impermissible to proceed with fresh steps of revenue recovery. It was also argued that the bank loan was time barred to be recovered under the Revenue Recovery Act and therefore the proceedings were to be interdicted.

(3.) Adverting to the judgment in State Bank of India v. Kuttappan [1998 (20 KLT 130], the learned single Judge held that recovery of amounts under the Revenue Recovery Act would be permissible as the words "on account of loan advanced" would take in the amount due under the decree obtained on the basis of that loan. Therefore, there was no question of limitation. However, the learned Judge relying on the judgment in Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. M/s.Gar Re-Rolling Mills and another [AIR 1994 SC 2151], held that since a decree had been obtained, it would have been incompetent for the Bank to proceed simultaneously with Revenue Recovery proceedings. It was suggested that it would be open to the Bank either to withdraw the Execution Petition under the Revenue Recovery Act or to give up the revenue recovery proceedings until the execution proceedings are terminated. This, the appellant submits, laid the Bank in deep trouble, and an interpretation of the provisions do not justify the dictum.