IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 24463 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.V.KALESAN,PROPRIETOR, HI-LITE BATTERY HOUSE, EDAPPLLY,OPP.EDAPPALLY CHURCH,KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.LALJI P.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TAHSILDAR(R.R),KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI-682 011. 2. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,CARMEL BUILDING,BANERJI ROAD, KOCHI-18. 3. MANAGER,WALK-IN FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD.,CORPORATE OFFICE, XL/5885,EMIRATES, M.G.ROAD,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-35. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN SMT.S. JASMINE FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 24463 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging the Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P2 notice, for realisation of amounts due to the second respondent under a decree of the Company Court (this Court) in C.C.No. 813/2005 in C.P. No. 9/2002. Contention of the petitioner is that the company claim made for was excessive amounts, without considering all payments effected by the petitioner. It is further pointed out that even after receipt of Ext.P2 notice, the petitioner had effected some payments, before the Revenue Recovery Authorities. Hence the petitioner is seeking to quash the Revenue Recovery proceedings. 2. Contention of the petitioner could not be entertained because the amount sought to be recovered is a decree debt by virtue of a judgment in a Company claim. The petitioner could have agitated the contentions before the Company Court or could have availed remedy by way of appeal against the decree. The correctness of the decree of Company Court cannot be reconsidered or reviewed in this proceedings. 3. Having confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner sought for indulgence of this Court in permitting payment of the liability within a reasonable time in instalments. Eventhough such 2 WP(C) No. 24463/2010 prayer was opposed by learned standing counsel appearing for official liquidator, I am inclined to show some indulgence in the matter. 4. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to keep further coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P2 notice in abeyance, on condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance along with interest and collection charges in 'three' equal monthly instalments payable on or before 30.09.2010 and on or before the last day of the succeeding two months. 5. It is open for the petitioner to approach the official liquidator if he has got any genuine grievance regarding the mistakes in computation of the amount under demand, and in case the second respondent is convinced of any such mistake it is open for him to issue revised requisition. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc