Allowed

Saheeda K v. State Bank of India

DRT19 Aug 2024MA/142/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed a petition to condone a 189-day delay in setting aside an ex parte final order. It granted relief on the condition that the petitioners deposit Rs. 30,000 as costs to the respondent_bank within a specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed on condition that the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000 as costs to the 1st respondent bank on or before 02.09.2024.

Saheeda K versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Fair order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 19^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

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

¶5

MA No. 142/2024 in OA No.102/2019

¶6

Between

¶7

Abilash C. Cheral House Kolathar P.O., Kozhikode – 673 655

¶8

Moinudeen Haneefa T. Thengilkath House Beypore P.O., Kozhikode – 673 015

¶9

Saheeda K Kattil House Thikkodi P.O., Kozhikode – 673 529

¶10

---Petitioners/Defendants 3 to 5

¶11

And

¶12

State Bank of India Asset Recovery Management Branch R. S. Building, M. G. Road Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 011

¶13

MA No.142/2024 in OA 102/2019

¶14

Aurchid Footwear India Private Limited Having its registered office : 4/832-A, BC Road Beypore P.O. Kozhikode – 673 015 Represented by its Managing Director Mislu T. P.

¶15

Mislu T. P. Thazhattupeediyakkal House Nallalam P.O. Kozhikode – 673 027

¶16

---Respondents/Applicant & Defendants 1 & 2

¶17

This petition coming today i.e. 19.08.2024 for hearing before me in the presence of Ms. Latha Susan Cherian, Advocate for the Petitioners/Defendants 3 to 5 and Mr. K. P. Sujesh Kumar, Advocate for the 1^st Respondent/Applicant Bank and arguments from the side of learned counsels for the parties and upon perusing the material records and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

MA No.142/2024 in OA No.102/2019 :- This petition has been filed by the petitioners praying to condone the delay of 189 days in filing the petition to set aside exparte final order dated 21.11.2023.

¶20

The petitioners have averred in their affidavit filed alongwith the petition that the petitioners are not the present Directors of the 1^st defendant company and that the present Director Rafeeq K. A. made payments towards outstanding loan due to the 1^st respondent bank and that the petitioners are unnecessary parties to the proceedings before this Tribunal and that the 1^st respondent bank issued Annexure – A2 OTS proposal to the aforesaid Rafeeq K. A. who has taken over the management of the 1^st defendant company and that the petitioners came to know of passing of the final order dated 21.11.2023 only after they received the copy of the order on 01.01.2024 and that the absence of the petitioners before the Tribunal was not willful and there is delay of 189 in filing this petition and that the delay may be condoned.

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

MA No.142/2024 in OA 102/2019

¶23

The counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent submitted that the petitioners are the defendants 3 to 5 in the OA and that they entered appearance through their counsel before this Tribunal on 25.06.2019 and that in spite of granting several adjournments, the petitioners did not file their written statement and that therefore, this Tribunal closed their chance for filing written statement and that subsequently the petitioners were set exparte on 09.01.2023 and that the 1^st defendant is the legal entity and that only on the undertaking given by the petitioners loan was sanctioned to the 1^st defendant company and that it was specifically provided in the loan agreements that constitution of the 1^st defendant company shall not be changed or altered without the prior written permission of the 1^st respondent bank during the tenure of the loan and that therefore, the agreement dated 22.06.2017 is not valid and that the petitioners having engaged a lawyer to represent their case in the proceedings are not entitled to take up the contention that they are not Directors of the 1^st defendant company and that retirement of the petitioners from the 1^st defendant company will not absolve them of their liability due to the 1^st respondent bank and that the averment of the petitioners that they came to know the final order only on receipt of the copy of the order is false and that this petition has been filed in collusion with the 1^st defendant company in order to drag on the proceedings of the OA and therefore, the petition may be dismissed.

¶24

It is noticed from perusal of the material records that though the petitioners who are defendants 3 to 5 entered appearance through their counsel before this Tribunal on 25.06.2019, they did not bother to file their written statement and that since they failed to file the written statement from 25.06.2019 till the date of 17.12.2020, this Tribunal was constrained to close their chance for filing written statement and that since they didn’t take any steps even thereafter to file their written statement, they were set exparte on 09.01.2023.

¶25

This Tribunal does not find any valid reason and substance in the averments of the petitioners that they are not the present Directors of the company and that one K. A. Rafeeq assured them that he would take care of their interest and contest the OA. Be that it may so, this Tribunal is of the considered view that one more opportunity has to be given to the petitioners so as to defend their case in the OA; but at the same time this Tribunal cannot overlook the hardship to be faced by the 1^st respondent bank on account of setting aside the final order passed in the OA against the petitioners.

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

MA No.142/2024 in OA 102/2019

¶28

Therefore, in view of the above, this petition shall stand allowed on condition that the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- being the costs to the 1^st respondent bank on or before 02.09.2024 failing which the petition shall stand dismissed. List the matter on 03.09.2024.

¶29

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 19^th day of August, 2024.

¶30

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶31

Page 4 of 4

Saheeda K v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saheeda K v. State Bank of India

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

Punjab National Bank (E-Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Sh. Noel Karmakar

Punjab National Bank versus Naresh Arora

Indian Bank versus M/S Pamper Polymer and Beverages

Mislu Tp versus State Bank of India

Dhanalakshmi Bank versus Mr.Yarram Rajashekar Reddy

Union Bank of India (Formerly Andhra Bank) versus Mr.G.Jaggareddygari Narayana Reddy