Dismissed

M/S. Orange Group of Companies, Rep.by v. the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tri

Kerala HC8 Feb 2011RP/964/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the Review Petition challenging the impugned judgment in a writ petition regarding SARFAESI proceedings. It held that there were no grounds to deviate from the original view since the payment conditions were not met, the subsequent sale was cancelled, and the petitioner's remedy for alleged loss lay in a suit for damages, not review.

What did the court decide?

The Review Petition No. 964 of 2010 filed in W.A. No. 1559 of 2010 was dismissed.

M/S. Orange Group of Companies, Rep.by Vs the Recovery… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932

¶6

RP.No. 964 of 2010()

¶7

-------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.1559/2010 Dated 14/09/2010 ....................

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT

¶9

¶10

M/S.ORANGE GROUP OF COMPANIES, BLUE DIAMOND BUILDING, BYE PASS JUNCTION, MEENCHANDA, KOZHIKODE, PIN-670027, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.ESHAQUE, S/O.EBRAHIM HAJEE.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALASUBRAMANYAN SRI.NIRMAL. S

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶13

¶14

THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, K.S.H.B. BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36.

¶15

UNION BANK OF INDIA, MAIN BRANCH, KOZHIKODE-673015.

¶16

M/S.KALPA OIL MILLS, 9/596, CHERCOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673015.

¶17

JEHANGIR GOPAL, PROPRIETOR, M/S.KALPA OIL MILLS, 18 MARINE GATE, APARTMENTS, CORPORATION OFFICE ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673032.

¶18

SHEELA JEHANGIR @ M.A.SHEELA, W/O.JAHANGIR GOPAL, 18 MARINE GATE APARTMENTS, CORPORATION OFFICE ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673032.

¶19

R.P.NO.964/2010 IN WA NO.1559/2010

¶20

P.SHANTHA KUMARI, W/O.LATE P.GOPAL, BHARGAVI BHAVAN, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691503.

¶21

D.AJITH, S/O.DHARMARAJAN, KALLUVILA VEEDU, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695007.

¶22

D.ANITHA, D/O.DHARMARAJAN, KALLUVILA VEEDU, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695017.

¶23

K.N.RAZIA, D/O.AMMED, KOZHAKKE NARANGOLI, KODIYOORA P.O., VELLIYODE, VADAGARA, KOZHIKODE-673 101.

¶24

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, NEW DELHI-341 022.

¶25

MR.M.V.S.NAMPOOTHIRI, SC FOR CBI MR.P.B.KRISHANAN MR.C.S.MANU MR.A.V.THOMAS

¶26

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

R.P.No.964 of 2010

W ANo.1559 of 2010

Dated, this the 8^th day of February, 2011

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶34

This Review Petition is filed for the reason that the statement made in the judgment that the property, after cancellation of sale in favour of the Review Petitioner, was sold by the Bank in SARFAESI proceedings through an agency appointed by the Bank, is incorrect.

¶35

Learned Standing Counsel for the Bank submitted that a mistake happened in the submission made in the Court because 5 items of properties involved and the item of property, which was purchased by the petitioner in auction were, in fact, released to the borrower, who remitted the dues to the Bank. Still we do not think there is any ground to interfere with the matter in review petition because all what the petitioner has done was to deposit the security

¶36

deposit for participation in the tender, and he submitted his tender. Even though price quoted by him was the highest, the review

¶37

R.P.No.964/2010

¶38

-2-

¶39

petitioner could not remit the sale price in time, which according to them is attributable to the CBI raid, that was going in the Office of the Recovery Officer. Whatever be the reason for non-remittance of the sale price in time, in our view, the sale was rightly cancelled by the Recovery officer because payment was not made in terms of tender conditions. After cancellation of the sale, the borrower cleared the arrears and got release of the property, and it is not known whether the property is still retained by him or not. In any case, we observed in the judgment that if at all the petitioner has suffered loss on account of the CBI raid, that was conducted in the Office of the Recovery Officer, which according to him led to his inability to pay the amount, his remedy is to file suit for damages.

¶40

We do not find any ground to deviate from the view taken in the judgment. Consequently, this Review Petition is dismissed.

¶41

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶42

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶43

M/S. Orange Group of Companies, Rep.by v. the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Orange Group of Companies, Rep.by v. the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tri

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

Uthradam Thirunal Marthanda Varma Vs Union of India

Jainulavudheen Vs State of Kerala

B.Radhamani Amma Vs Union of India & Others

The Central Provident Fund Commr,New Del Vs Federal Bank Ltd.

Arun V.S. Vs the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom and

Anju Vijayan Vs High Court of Kerala-Rep;by Registrar