Allowed

Uco Bank, Thrissur v. a.v.Moidunni

Kerala HC24 Mar 2010WP(C)/6736/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed indefinite delays in a Debt Recovery Tribunal application regarding a bank's security interest. It directed the DRT to conclude the pending sale-related proceedings within two months while allowing potential settlement options.

What did the court decide?

Directed the DRT, Ernakulam to conduct final hearing and pass final orders in S.A.92/2007 within two months from receipt of this judgment.

Uco Bank, Thrissur Vs a.v.Moidunni — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 6736 of 2010(N) --------------------------------------SA.92/2007 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ----------------------

¶7

UCO BANK, SWARAJ ROUND EAST, THRISSUR - 680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, SR.N.C.PADMANABHAN.

¶8

BY ADV. MR.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN, MR.T.S.HARIKUMAR, MR.K.JAGADEESH.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

---------------------------

¶11

A.V. MOIDUNNY, AMMANATH HOUSE, VADAKKANCHERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 6736/2010-N

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶17

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED AS S.A NO.92 OF 2007, DATED 25/10/2007 FILED BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY RIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶18

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DRT, ERNAKULAM, DATED 14/11/2007.

¶19

EXT.P3: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION CHALLENGING THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY, DATED 09/07/2009.

¶20

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT ANNEXURES FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20/07/2009.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No. 6736 of 2010

¶26

Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2010

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioner is aggrieved of the non-finalisation of the S.A.92/2007, filed by the respondent before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Ernakulam, which is stated as being adjourned day by day, causing irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioner bank, despite the fact that the property over which security interest was created while availing the loan was actually sold in public auction on 29.6.2009 and the entire sale consideration has been satisfied by the successful bidder, to whom necessary sale certificate has to be issued, also causing the property to be registered in accordance with law.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent as well, who submits that the respondent is ready and willing to settle the entire liability, provided some

¶30

W.P.(C).No. 6736 of 2010

¶31

¶32

breathing time is given in this regard. The learned counsel for the petitioner bank submits that, immediately after the sale held on 29.6.2009, Ext.P3 petition was filed to set aside the sale and the DRT passed an order of 'status quo' which is still in operation. It is said that, even though the pleadings are complete, several adjournments have already been granted as evident from the postings held on 3.9.2009, 14.10.2009, 20.10.2009, 22.12.2009, 7.1.2010, 4.2.2010, and lastly on 11.3.2010. The matter is stated as posted on 8.4.2010 for further consideration. The prayer of the petitioner is only to have the proceeding finalised without any further delay.

¶33

After hearing both the sides, and also taking note of the mandate under the relevant provisions of the SARFAESI Act, this Court finds that, there is no point in adjourning the matter indefinitely and that the proceedings are to be taken to a logical conclusion, in accordance with merits involved. Accordingly the DRT, Ernakulam is directed to conduct the

¶34

W.P.(C).No. 6736 of 2010

¶35

¶36

final hearing and pass final orders in S.A.92/2007, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 months from the date of receipt a copy of this Judgment. This, however, will not stand in the way of the respondent, in causing the matter to be settled, subject to the terms as to be proposed and accepted among the parties concerned.

¶37

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶38

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶39

Uco Bank, Thrissur v. a.v.Moidunni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank, Thrissur v. a.v.Moidunni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Thankam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Intelligence Officer (Ib)

Thaha T.S. by P.a.Holder Hafsath Vs State of Kerala

M.Krishnadas Vs the District Collector and Others

The Kadannamanna Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs the Income Tax Officer and Others

Regency Club Vs R.D.O., Thrissur

M/S. Lg Electronics India Vs Asst. Commissioner (Assessment)