Disposed

M/S.Parisons Foods Ltd. v. the Debts Recovery Tribunal

Kerala HC18 Mar 2011OP (DRT)/1063/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Debt Recovery Tribunal to expeditiously pass orders on applications for extension of time and delivery of auctioned property. The Court did not rule on merits and noted that the judgment copy should be produced before the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Directive to the Tribunal to pass orders on pending applications after hearing parties upon receipt of the judgment copy.

M/S.Parisons Foods Ltd. Vs the Debts Recovery… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 1063 of 2011(O)

¶6

---------------------------OA.319/1998 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

¶9

M/S.PARISONS FOODS LTD REGD.OFFICE 6/1183, CHEROOTTY ROAD, CALICUT 673 032,REPRESENTED BY BITS DIRECTOR N.K.KHALID.

¶10

N.K.KHALID, DIRECTOR ,M/S.PARISONS FOODS LTD REGD.OFFICE 6/1183, CHEROOTTY ROAD,CALICUT 673 032

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

¶14

THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (KERALA

¶15

& LAKSHADWEEP) 8TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682 036.

¶16

SAIDALIKUTTY & BAVA, T.P.HOUSE, KALPAKAMCHERRY, MALAPPURAM 676 551.

¶17

STATE BANK OF INDIA

¶18

KOLLAM MAIN BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691001.

¶19

BY SC SRI. R.S. KALKURA

¶20

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ O.P.(DRT) NO. 1063 OF 2011

¶22

=====================

¶23

Dated this the 18^th day of March, 2011

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Pursuant to the proceedings in DRC No.512, which arose from OA 319/98 on the file of the 1^st respondent Tribunal, properties of the 2^nd respondent and the other debtors were sold in public auction. First petitioner purchased the property in the auction. The sale was confirmed and the petitioner deposited `1.67 crores towards the sale consideration. It appears that the 2^nd respondent thereafter filed an appeal to set aside the sale. On an application made, in which he offered to pay the amount due to the Bank, Tribunal passed orders allowing him time.

¶26

According to the petitioners, payment was not made not only within the time asked for by the 2^nd respondent, but also not within the time allowed by the Tribunal. According to the petitioners, on the last occassion viz., on 24/2/11, 2^nd respondent furnished a demand draft for `50 lakhs and again filed another application seeking extension of time for making payment. On that day, the petitioners also submitted Ext.P9 application, requesting that the property should be delivered to them.

¶27

OP(DRT) No.1063/2011

¶28

:2 :

¶29

The application made by the 2^nd respondent for extension of time and Ext.P9 application made by the petitioners are both posted to 21/3/2011. In this writ petition, the prayer of the petitioners is to direct the 1^st respondent Tribunal to expeditiously pass orders in the aforesaid two applications after hearing the parties concerned.

¶30

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the standing counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent Bank. In the nature of the direction that is proposed to be passed, I do not think it necessary to put the 2^nd respondent on notice.

¶31

If as stated by the petitioners, applications made by the 2^nd respondent seeking enlargement of time and Ext.P9 application made by the petitioners for delivery of the auctioned property are posted to 21/3/2011, it is necessary that the Tribunal should pass orders, particularly having regard to the substantial amounts that have been paid by the petitioners. Therefore, I direct that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, the Tribunal shall, if not on 21/3/2011, on an earliest occasion, pass orders on the aforesaid two applications made by the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent after hearing the counsel concerned.

¶32

OP(DRT) No.1063/2011

¶33

:3 :

¶34

Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the Tribunal for compliance. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the respective parties and it is entirely for the Tribunal to consider the same.

¶35

O.P. is disposed of as above.

¶36

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶37

M/S.Parisons Foods Ltd. v. the Debts Recovery Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Parisons Foods Ltd. v. the Debts Recovery Tribunal

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

V.P.Sarojini Vs Niveditha P.Haran and Others

Abraham Thomas Vs Union of India

Hemand Kumar Vs Ramanattukara Grama Panchayath and Ors.

Sikhandar Salman.P.a. Vs Dr.Pradeepkumar

Punjab National Bank Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal & Others

Sirajudheen Vs M.K.Ajeena and Others