Disposed

Thitta Purushothaman v. South Indian Bank

DRAT1 Feb 2024MISC APPEAL/12/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal clarified that the lower DRT must decide the pending main Securitisation Application on merits within six weeks without being influenced by observations or findings recorded in the dismissed interlocutory application.

What did the court decide?

Direction to lower Tribunal to decide Securitisation Application within six weeks without being influenced by interlocutory observations.

Thitta Purushothaman versus South Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 1^st of February, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar

¶4

CHAIRPERSON

¶5

MA (SA) 12/2023

¶6

[IA 2956/2022 in SA 581/2022 on the file of DRT I, Ernakulam]

¶7

Between

¶8

Thitta Purushothaman, Merchanic, residing at Thitta House, Azhikode amson and desm, P.O. Azhikode, Kannur -670 009.

¶9

M/s. Pioneer Auto Engineering Works,

¶10

Near Dhanalakshmi Hospital, Kannothumchal Road, Thana, Kannur – 670 002. Represented by its Managing Partner, Thitta Purushothaman.

¶11

……Appellants

¶12

And

¶13

The South Indian Bank Ltd., Regional Office, KVR Tower, Pampan Madhavan Road, Opposite LIC building, Talap, Kannur – 670 002. Represented by its Authorised Officer.

¶14

Pothan Rajan, S/o Narayanan, Merchanic, Kausthubham, Pallikkulam P.O., Chirakkal Kannur – 670 011.

¶15

….. Respondents

¶16

Counsel for Appellants : Mr. M. L. Joseph Counsel for R1 : M/s. Ramalingam and Associates Counsel for R2 : Mr. P. C. Pradeep

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Appeal is preferred against Order dated 17.01.2023 in IA 2956/2022 in SA 581/2022 of DRT-I, Ernakulam.

¶20

2. Heard both sides.

¶21

Advocate for Appellants submitted that Appellants are neither Borrowers nor Guarantors for the loan granted by 1^st Respondent, South Indian Bank Ltd., and 1^st Appellant is a partner of 2^nd Appellant, M/s. Pioneer Auto Engineering Works, but Tribunal below recorded in para 4 of its Order that 2^nd Appellant Firm availed loan, which is factually incorrect. He submitted thinking that 2^nd Appellant Firm is a Borrower, Tribunal below dismissed the Interlocutory Application, and now, 1^st Respondent Bank is taking steps to take possession of disputed property which

¶22

is in possession and enjoyment of 2^nd Appellant Firm

¶23

¶24

wherein there are several workers. It is further submitted to protect the interest of 2^nd Appellant Firm, an Interim Order may be granted.

¶25

On the other hand, Advocate for 1^st Respondent Bank opposed and submitted that, property is individual property of 2^nd Respondent, and Tribunal below rightly dismissed the Application.

¶26

Admittedly, main Securitisation Application is still pending, and these findings are recorded at Interlocutory stage, and ultimately, the contentions and rival contentions with regard to the nature of property, ownership of property and mortgage created, in favour of Bank have to be decided in the main Securitisation Application, and any observation at Interlocutory stage would no way affect the final disposal of Securitisation Application.

¶27

¶28

When it is put to both sides whether they are ready to proceed with main Securitisation Application, in which, rights of both parties can be determined, within a time frame; both of them represented that they are willing to proceed with the main Securitisation Application. But, Advocate for Appellants made a request that till the disposal of main Securitisation Application, possession of 2^nd Appellant Firm has to be protected. When it is put to Advocate for Appellants whether they are ready to file an undertaking Affidavit not to interfere with or obstruct the process after the disposal of main Securitisation Application, if it went against them, it is represented that party is not willing.

¶29

7. Considering the submissions of both sides, without

¶30

going into merits and demerits of the case, it is ordered that, Tribunal below shall decide SA 581/2022, by giving opportunity to both parties, on merits, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of

¶31

¶32

copy of this Order, without being influenced by any of observations made in this Appeal or any of findings recorded in impugned Order dated 17.01.2023. It is further clarified that both parties shall co-operate with Tribunal below in disposal of SA 581/2022, in giving effect

¶33

to the above directions. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Both parties shall bear their own costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶34

Dictated to Athistamani, PS, in open court, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me, this 1^st of February, 2023]

¶35

[ Justice S. Ravi Kumar]

¶36

CHAIRPERSON

¶37

Thitta Purushothaman v. South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thitta Purushothaman v. South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus G.Sarathy & Ors.

Francis Andrews Xavier versus Axis Bank

Maximus Arc Limited versus Ms Crombest Precest Buildings Ltd.

Melbos Engineering versus Ms Priamal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

Tamilnadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation Ltd. versus The State Bank of Trivancore

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Sri Gayathri Chashews