Allowed

State Bank of India v. Prakas Kizhakkepatt and another

DRT15 Feb 2023MA/290/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed a review application by the Bank to correct an error in a previous order where a full payment was mistakenly recorded. The court directed that the Recovery Certificate be restored for the balance amount after deducting the Rs.32 Lakhs recovered.

What did the court decide?

The recovery certificate DRC 4564 is recalled; Registry directed to issue fresh DRC for the remaining balance after deducting Rs.32 Lakhs; Recovery Officer directed to proceed with recovery.

State Bank of India versus Prakas Kizhakkepatt and another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 15^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

PRESENT: Su. WILLYAHM, B.Sc., M.L. [DISTRICT JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

M.A No. 290 of 2022

¶6

¶7

M.A. No.28 of 2019

¶8

¶9

(O.A No. 149 of 2015)

¶10

Between

¶11

State Bank of India, Mannarkkad Branch, Namboodiri’s Arcade, Main Road, Mannarkkad, Palakkad, represented by the Assistant General Manager, ARM Branch, Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam.

¶12

…Petitioner/Applicant

¶13

And

¶14

Prakas Kizhekkepatt, “Sree Kailas”, Kumaram Puthur, Palakkad-678 583. Also at 185, Byron Avenue, London, E – 126 NJ.

¶15

K.P. Achuthankutty, “Sree Kailas”, Kumaram Puthur, Palakkad-678 583.

¶16

--- Respondents/Defendants

¶17

MA No.290/2022 in MA 28 of 2019 in OA 149/2015

¶18

¶19

This petition coming on 07.02.2023 for hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Saju N.A. Counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant and upon perusing the material records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

MA No.290/2022 in MA No.28/2019 in OA No.149/2015 :- This petition has been filed praying to review the order dated 10.07.2019 recalling the Recovery Certificate, in which the full settlement of the OA claim is recorded instead of part settlement as submitted in M.A. 28/2019 in OA 149/2015 and the Recovery Certificate to the extent of the claim remaining unsettled be restored to the files of the learned Recovery Officer.

¶22

The petitioner Bank filed the petition M.A. No.28/2019 praying to return the original of Sale Deed No.3999/2012 dated 23.05.2012 of Mannarkkad Sub Registry, which is produced as Exhibit A4 and in the above O.A, after recording the receipt of an amount of Rs.32 Lakhs towards the O.A. claim and withdraw of the Recovery Certificate issued with No.4564.

¶23

This Tribunal after hearing the Counsel appearing for the petitioner Bank, passed order dated 10.07.2019 allowing the petition and full satisfaction of the DRC debt amount of a sum of Rs.32 Lakhs was recorded and the recovery certificate, DRC 4564 was recalled. The Counsel appearing for the petitioner Bank submitted that due to an inadvertent mistake at the time of submitting the petition, M.A. No.28/2019, the fact that only part of the O.A claim was recovered and that the recovery proceedings are to be continued for the remaining amount after deducting the recovery amount of Rs.32 Lakhs has been omitted to be written in the affidavit accompanying the petition filed in M.A. No.28/2019 and that therefore order passed by this Tribunal in M.A. No.28/2019 recalling the Recovery certificate after recording full satisfaction of the O.A claim may be reviewed and recalled and that DRC to the extent of claim remaining unsettled be restored to the file of the learned Recovery Officer. Petition M.A. No.5/2023 filed by the petitioner Bank to incorporate the above submission in the above M.A. 28/2019 was allowed by this Tribunal on 18.01.2023. Pursuant to the above order, necessary amendment has also been effected in the affidavit filed in the petition, M.A. No.28/2019 instead of mentioning that only the O.A. claim has been recovered and that recovery proceedings are to be continued for the remaining amount after deducting the recovery amount of Rs.32 Lakhs has been omitted. Therefore this Tribunal holds that it is just and necessary to review its earlier order dated 10.07.2019 recalling the DRC and recording the full satisfaction. Hence this petition, MA. No.290/2022 stands allowed.

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

MA No.290/2022 in MA 28 of 2019 in OA 149/2015

¶26

¶27

Part satisfaction for a sum of Rs.32 Lakhs is recorded. The Registry is directed to issue fresh Debt Recovery Certificate for the remaining outstanding due after deducting the recovered amount of Rs.32 lakhs. The learned Recovery Officer is directed to proceed further for the recovery of the balance outstanding due amount in accordance with law.

¶28

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 15^th February, 2023.

¶29

[Su. WILLYAHM] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶30

Mj/

¶31

Page 3 of 3

State Bank of India v. Prakas Kizhakkepatt and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Prakas Kizhakkepatt and another

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

Similar cases

Mr Vajrabodhi So Ramchandra Meshram versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Ms Mahamai Sweets versus Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank

Kapildev Yadav versus Bank of Baroda

Dayakar Bajirao Gedam versus Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Ltd.

Manti Devi versus Canara Bank

Ms Raj Traders and others versus Punjab National Bank