SAM J. MATHEWS Vs. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cases, though presenting varied facts and nuances, are nevertheless concatenated by a common prayer: in all of them are impugned the action taken by various Banks for recovery of amounts over Rs.10.00 lakhs (Rupees One Million), allegedly due from the petitioners, under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as the "RR Act" for ease).

(2.) While the petitioners in these cases, who are all admittedly borrowers and guarantors of loans of more than Rs.10.00 lakhs availed from the respondent-Banks, assert that on account of the specific provisions under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, now rechristened as Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "RDB Act" for short), no requisition for recovery of such amounts can be made by the Banks under the provisions of the RR Act; the Banks on the contrary, maintain that their option to recover amounts from the borrowers/guarantors, through the various channels/methods legally available to them, including under RR Act, is implicit and therefore, that even if other remedies under other statutes are available, they are still at liberty to make a requisition to the Competent Authorities under the RR Act, provided the loans are once that fall within the umbra of S. 71 of the said Act.

(3.) I have heard Sri. Varghese C. Kuriakose, Sri. S. Easwaran, Sri. V.K. Peermohamed Khan and Sri. M.A. Augustine, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the various Writ Petitions and Sri. A.S.P. Kurup, Sri. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Sri. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, Sri. V.B Harinarayan and Sri. Pauly Mathew Muricken, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Banks.