Allowed

Mariamma Rajan v. the Chief General Manager & Authorized

Kerala HC1 Dec 2011OP (DRT)/3904/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ relief to withdraw proceedings before Debts Recovery Tribunal and settle loan arrears. Court directed withdrawal against facility for six-month instalment payment plan starting December 2011, with default consequences.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to unconditionally withdraw S.A.No.564/2011; respondents to permit payment of balance dues in six equal monthly instalments starting 30.12.2011.

Mariamma Rajan Vs the Chief General Manager & Authorized — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 3904 of 2011(O)

¶6

----------------------------------------SA.564/2011 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

(S): PETITIONER

¶8

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

¶9

MARIAMMA RAJAN,W/O.RAJAN,KOIKKAPARAMBIL KOLLANETH HOUSE,VIDHYADIRAJA NAGAR,MEIKKAD PO, NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 585.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA,NODAL REGIONAL OFFICE UNION BANK BHAVAN,M.G.ROAD, COCHIN 682 035.

¶14

2. THE MANAGER,UNION BANK OF INDIA, ATHANI BRANCH,ATHANI PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 585.

¶15

R1 & R3 BY ASP KURUP,SC

¶16

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

OP (DRT).No. 3904 of 2011

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SA NO.564/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 27/9/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN SA NO.564/2011 OF THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM AS IA NO.2167/2011

¶22

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 3/10/2011 IN IA NO.2167/2011 IN SA NO.564/2011 OF THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERANAKULAM.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DATED 29/10/2011 FILED IN SA NO.564/2011 OF THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL I ERNAKULAM AS IA NO.2365/2011

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

\TRUE COPY\

PA TO JUDGE

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶29

O.P.(DRT) No.3904 of 2011

¶30

Dated this the 1^st day of December, 2011

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner is a defaulter in repayment of loan amounts due to the respondents. The respondents initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. The petitioner challenged the same by filing an application under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In the same, the petitioner sought interim orders as well. The Tribunal passed Ext.P3 interim order of stay subject to the condition that the petitioner remits Rs.75,000/- on or before 30.10.2011, another Rs.75,000/- on or before 30.11.2011 and yet another Rs.75,000/- on or before 31.12.2011. The petitioner could not remit the instalments as directed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Although the petitioner sought modification of that order before the Tribunal, By Ext.P3 order, the Tribunal rejected the prayer. It

¶33

O.P.(DRT)No.3904/11

¶34

¶35

is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this Original Petition (DRT) seeking the following reliefs:

¶36

“i) to call for the records leading to Ext.P3 order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam and set aside the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari.

¶37

ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to 1^st respondent, directing him to consider the objections in Annexure-A4 letter attached to Ext.P4 application and to revise Annexure-A2 account statement attached to Ext.P1, as expeditiously as possible within a specific period of time.

¶38

iii) to issue necessary order or direction to respondents to permit petitioner to settle her proper balance loan arrears within 6 to 7 monthly instalments starting from the last week December 2011.”

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶40

the petitioner does not now dispute the liability to pay or the quantum and the petitioner does not wish to proceed with the application under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner is prepared to withdraw the Securitisation Application unconditionally. The petitioner only seeks facility to pay off the amounts due in six equal monthly instalments.

¶41

This is opposed by the learned counsel for the bank.

¶42

I am of opinion that the bank can show some more

¶43

leniency to the petitioner in the matter of payment of the

¶44

O.P.(DRT)No.3904/11

¶45

¶46

amounts due in instalments.

¶47

Accordingly, this O.P.(DRT) is disposed of with the following directions:

¶48

The petitioner shall unconditionally withdraw S.A.No.564/2011 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. On that condition, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to pay off the balance amounts due in six equal

¶49

monthly instalments starting from 30.12.2011. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the 1^st working day after the 28^th of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the instalments on due dates without default, further recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of any one instalment, it would be open to the respondents to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard, in which event the petitioner shall surrender the mortgaged property without any objection whatsoever.

¶50

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶51

acd

¶52

O.P.(DRT)No.3904/11 4

¶53

O.P.(DRT)No.3904/11 5

Mariamma Rajan v. the Chief General Manager & Authorized

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariamma Rajan v. the Chief General Manager & Authorized

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.Vaisali Kuries & Investments (P) Ltd. Vs Sri.T.R.Sathyanarayana Shetty,Bangalore

Uthaman Vs Dr.Rathan v Kelkar

E.Jermias Vs Pushpa Beegam and 3 Otehrs

A.Y.Chacko Vs K.Ajitha & Another

Bekal Resorts Development Corporation Vs Khadeeja and Others

V.a.Thomas Vs State of Kerala