Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  


This Page To:

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM & ANOTHER V/S K.P. VARGHESE, decided on Monday, January 29, 2001.
[ In the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram, Appeal No. 72 of 2000. ] 29/01/2001
Advocate(s) : M. Rajagopalan Nair. None.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-

  K.J. Varghese Versus The State of Kerala represented by The Public Prosecutor,   21/10/2016.  

  Fr. George Patlatt & Another Versus Sub Inspector of Police & Others,   17/03/2016.  

  K.B. Augustine & Another Versus State of Kerala, to be represented by The Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat & Others,   21/01/2016.  

  Shabina Abraham & Others Versus Collector of Central Excise & Customs,   29/07/2015.  

  Baby Varghese Versus Anitha Roy & Others,   22/05/2015.  

  Fr. Sabu P. Thomas, Loyola College of Social Science, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus Union of India, represented by Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others,   04/02/2015.  

  Dharmarajan Versus State of Kerala rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala,   04/04/2014.  

  Annamma Varghese Versus The Special Tahsildar (La) (Nh) Kottayam & Another,   21/08/2013.  

  P.S. Satheesh Chandran Nair Versus Mini Panicker,   07/09/2012.  

  K.C. Peter Versus State of kerala, Represented by CBCID, Rep. by Public Prosecutor,   14/03/2011.  

  M/S. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd Versus State Of Kerala & Others,   18/05/2010.  

  V.C. Varghese Versus District Collector, Collectorate Kottayam & Another,   15/06/2009.  

  Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. Versus State of Kerala, Represented By Its Chief Secretary too Government & Others ,   24/08/2007.  

  Novartis AG Schwarzwaldalle 215 4058 Basel and Lichstrasse 35 4002 Basel, Switzerland represented by it's Power of Attorney Ranjna Mehta Dutt & Another Versus Union of India through the Secretary Department of Industry Ministry of Industry and Commerce Udyog Bhavan New Delhi & Others ,   06/08/2007.  

  Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. Versus State of Kerala ,   09/02/2007.  

  The Commissioner of Excise & Another Versus K.K. Gopidas & Others ,   31/03/2005.  

  Laly Vincent Versus State of Kerala ,   17/07/1995.  

  Ghee Dee Fankula Versus District Collector, Ernakulam ,   29/05/1992.  

  Ghee Dee Fankula Versus District Collector, Ernakulam ,   29/05/1992.  

  Ghee Dee Fankula Versus District Collector, Ernakulam ,   29/05/1992.  


  Parameswaran Versus Dist collector, Ernakulam & Others ,   17/12/1987.  


  Parathodu Panchayat And Etc. Versus Kanjirappally Panchayat And Others ,   24/01/1984.  

  Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. Versus Assistant Collector,   20/06/1979.  

  KATHREENA Versus R.T.O, KOTTAYAM ,   23/11/1977.  


  P.J. ZACHARIA AND ANOTHER Versus STATE OF KERALA ,   18/12/1975.  

  Kuruchiyan Kunhaman Versus State of Kerala,   08/01/1974.  

#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2002 (1) CPC 684"  ==   "2002 (2) CPJ 51"  ==   ""  

    L. Manoharan President:1. The opposite parties in O.P. No. 898/1998 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kottayam is the appellant. The grievance of the complainant was that he participated in the auction dated 11.7.1996 and was successful bidder the said auction was conducted by opposite party. Being the successful bidder he deposited the amount later the said sale came to be set aside by the opposite parties on the ground that the said sale was conducted when there was an attachment on the property from O.S. No. 554/90 of the Hon’ble Sub Court Kottayam. On setting aside the said auction O.P. returned only the amount that he has deposited the return of the amount was delayed the insisted for interest and for the same he filed the complaint. The opposite parties sought to maintain that the said claim is not sustainable as the said sale came to be set aside because of the attachment by the Sub Court. The District Forum overruled the objection and made a direction to the opposite parties to pay interest at 10% on the principal amount Rs. 89 600/- for the period from 11.7.1996 to 29.11.1997 and also to pay costs Rs. 1 500/-. It is the said direction to pay interest on the principal amount and costs that this appeal is filed. Learned Counsel urged consistent with his position before the District Forum that inasmuch as the sale came to be set aside because of the attachment it cannot be held that there was any deficiency on the part of the opposite party/appellants. He also made reliance on Section 55 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act to maintain that there could be no obligation to pay interest. It is urged an earlier O.P. 130/1997 with respect to the prior auction with respect to the same property was instituted by the present respondent consequent upon the setting aside of the sale by the present appellants. Alleging that they returned only part of the amount deposited by him he filed the said complaint for return of the balance and interest thereon. The said O.P. 130/1997 was allowed by the District Forum against which the Appeal 981/1997 was filed; the same was dismissed. Thus the dispute is a consumer dispute cannot be now challenged in view of the decision in the earlier O.P. Then the only question is the propriety of allowing interest. It should be noted that there is no case that the attachment was from a suit instituted by the auction-purchaser/respondent. Therefore the cause for setting aside the sale by the appellant cannot be said to be on account of any act or omission on the part of the respondent. Then ordinarily consequent upon the setting aside of the said sale the appellants were bound to return the amount without delay. Normally the money belonging to another when lies with another the money would be deemed to generate interest. Section 55 of the KRRA enjoins that on setting aside the sale the amount deposited by the auction purchaser shall be returned to the purchaser. That means the amount has to be returned without delay. That cannot be interpreted to mean that the said return can be indefinitely delayed and the appellant would get immunity from paying interest. The section is not capable of such an interpretation. Therefore the argument of Counsel for the appellant cannot be upheld. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.In the result the appeal is dismissed.