IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 8789 of 2010(W) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. RAMACHANDRAN.M.S, S/O. SUBRAMANIYAN, MANIYATH HOUSE, INCHAMUDI.P.O, KARUP9PADANNA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SUMA RAMACHANDRAN, MANIYATH HOUSE, INCHAMUDI.P.O, KARUP9PADANNA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJESH SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COMPANY LAW BHAVAN, BMC ROAD, THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY) MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, INCHAMUDI VILLAGE OFFICE, INCHAMUDI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.MONI (OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR) R2 & R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MATHEW VADEKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO.8789/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30/11/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30/11/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30/11/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30/11/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 8789 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against revenue recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to Exts.P1 to P4 notices. The amount sought to be recovered is due under a decree passed by the Company Court, in C.C. No.448 of 2005 in C.P. No.1 of 2000. 2. It is revealed from the impugned notices that recovery steps were initiated on the basis of requisition made by the 1st respondent, the Official Liquidator. Contentions raised against the recovery steps deserve no consideration, since the petitioners have not raised any effective challenges against the claim before the Company Court, nor they had chosen to file appeal against the decree. However, when the writ petition came up for consideration, this Court had granted an interim stay, subject to condition of the petitioners remitting a sum of W.P.(C) No. 8789/2010 2 Rs.5,000/-. It is submitted that the petitioners have already remitted the said amount. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks indulgence of this Court in permitting payment of the balance amount in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. It is submitted that the petitioners are coolie workers and they are getting only a meagre income out of their employment. 4. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that, even though interference on merits is not possible, indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioners to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable time, in intalments. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery initiated pursuant to Exts.P1 to P4 notices, subject to condition of the petitioners remitting the entire balance amount, along with interest if any due, in 8 (eight) equal monthly instalments, falling due W.P.(C) No. 8789/2010 3 on or before 30-11-2010 and on or before the last day of every succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to the notices already issued. On such event, the petitioners will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenges. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.