Dismissed

Jayaprakashan P v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT21 Aug 2025MA/170/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Discussed a Maintenance Application to recall and set aside an earlier order dismissing a Sale Affected remedy petition for secured assets. The Tribunal rejected claims of misrepresentation regarding a legal heir and dismissed the petition as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The petition M.A.No.170/2025 stands dismissed.

Jayaprakashan P versus Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 21^st DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

M.A No. 170 of 2025

¶6

¶7

S.A No. 362 of 2024

¶8

Between

¶9

Jayaprakashan P., S/o.Kelu,

¶10

Ponnarath House,

¶11

Kuttiattoor P.O.,

¶12

Kannur -670602

¶13

Mahija Kumari,

¶14

W/o. Rasmesh Babu, Methale Veetil,

¶15

Peravoor P.O.,

¶16

Kannur-670673

¶17

Ashalatha,

¶18

Ponnarath House, Kuttiattoor P.O.,

¶19

Kannur -670602

¶20

Kanakalatha

¶21

Ponnarath House, Kuttiattoor P.O.,

¶22

Kannur -670602

¶23

…Petitioners/Applicants

¶24

MA No.170/2025 in SA 362/2024

¶25

¶26

And

¶27

The Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, Kalpetta Branch, Popular Automobiles Building, Opp.Civil Station, Kalpetta North, Wyanad 673122.

¶28

The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Kalpetta Branch, Popular Automobiles Building, Opp.Civil Station, Kalpetta North, Wynad 673122.

¶29

*3. Asokan P., Vellurvalappil House, Mullkodi, Kannur – 670602

¶30

*(Amended as per order dated 12.07.2024 in IA No. 1835/2024)

¶31

--- Respondents/Defendants

¶32

This petition coming on 18.08.2025 for hearing before me in the presence of Mr. C.S.Ullas Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms.Arya representing the Counsel for R1 and R2 and Ms.Lakshmy representing the counsel for R3, and upon hearing the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioners and upon perusing the material records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

MA No.170/2025 in SA No.362/2024 :- This petition has been filed praying to recall and set aside the order dated 22.05.2025 passed in SA No.362/2024.

¶35

The petitioners are the applicants in SA 362/2024 which was filed against the respondents herein seeking to set aside Annexure A5 sale notice dated 08.02.2024 in respect of item Nos.1,2 and 3 of the secured assets and sale confirmation of the secured assets and to set aside the sale certificate

¶36

Page 2 of 4

¶37

MA No.170/2025 in SA 362/2024

¶38

¶39

dated 15.03.2024 and also to set aside the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpetta.

¶40

This Tribunal after having heard both sides’ counsels and upon perusal of the materials on record passed a detailed order dated 22.05.2025 dismissing the above SA. The various contentions raised by the petitioners in the above SA were considered and the same were suitably answered by this Tribunal in its order dated 22.05.2025.

¶41

The averments of the affidavit of the petitioners filed along with this petition were perused. The main contention raised by the petitioners in the affidavit is that the death of father of the petitioners, Mr.Kelu, was put to the knowledge of the defendant Bank in W.P.(C) No.40162/2022 which was filed on 09.12.2022 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and that the defendant Bank after having aware the death of Mr.Kelu, misrepresented in the written statement that death of Mr.Kelu was not communicated to the defendants and that this tribunal having considered the above contention of the defen40162/2022 observed in its order that since the death of Mr.Kelu was not informed to them(defendants), this Tribunal does not find any force in the submission of the counsel for the applicants that possession notice was not issued to the legal heirs of Mr.Kelu and that it amounts to misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the defendants.

¶42

Admittedly, in paragraph 7 of the written statement, the defendants have averred that at the time of issuance of the possession notice (referring to Annexure B3 dated 11.07.2022) the applicants had not informed the death of late Mr.Kelu. It cannot be disputed by the applicants that death of Mr.Kelu was not communicated in writing to the defendants prior to the issuance of Annexure B3 possession notice. In the writ petition W.P.C No.40162/2022 Annexure B, the 1^st applicant has stated as follows:”father of the petitioner is now no more”. The above writ petition was filed on 08.12.2022 that is to say prior to issuance of Annexure B3 possession notice. That is why in Annexure B5 possession notice dated 13.02.2023, which was issued subsequently the defendants have stated as Mr.Kelu (late). Therefore, this Tribunal does not find any substance in the submission of the counsel for the applicants that the defendants committed fraud by misrepresentation that the death of Mr.Kelu was not communicated to them.

¶43

The defendants have contended in the written statement that the contention of the appellant in respect of earlier securitization measures were barred by constructive res judicata since they challenged the same measures in W.P. (C) No. No.40162/2022. The affidavit of the petitioners herein which was filed in the aforesaid writ petition was not produced by the defendants in order to find out as to whether the principle of constructive res judicata can be made applicable to the facts of the SA. This Tribunal does not find as to what was ambiguity or issue in the aforesaid observations of the Tribunal.

¶44

Page 3 of 4

¶45

MA No.170/2025 in SA 362/2024

¶46

¶47

Apart from the aforesaid contentions raised by the applicants in the present petition, they have raised several issues which were already discussed by this Tribunal in its final order. If this Tribunal decides to discuss the aforesaid issues, it will amount to re-writing of its own order which is not permissible in law. There is no element of fraud committed by the defendants by suppressing material facts in their pleadings as contended by the petitioners.

¶48

This Tribunal does not find any error on the face of the final order dated 22.05.2025 passed by this Tribunal. There are no merits or valid reasons to recall the above order passed by this Tribunal. Further, this petition is not at all maintainable.

¶49

In view of the foregoing reasons the petition M.A.No.170/2025 stands dismissed.

¶50

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 21^st day of August, 2025.

¶51

[Su. WILLYAHM] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶52

al/

¶53

Page 4 of 4

Jayaprakashan P v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaprakashan P v. Indian Overseas 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

Similar cases

M/S a. B. Nimbalkar through Its Patner Shri Arun Bhaiyyaji Nimbalkar versus State Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Achhar Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Hardeep Singh

Sandeep Singh Slathia versus Punjab National Bank

M/S C Gems and Jewels Pvt. Ltd. versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Bhajan Singh