Allowed

Satish Nayak v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC18 Oct 2012OP (DRT)/3387/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed defaulting petitioners to pay their bank dues in ten equal monthly instalments. The court directed withdrawal of the pending stay application and deferred coercive recovery action on compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed to pay dues in 10 equal monthly instalments. Directed to withdraw pending SARFAESI stay application. Coercive action deferred.

Satish Nayak Vs the Authorised Officer — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/26TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 3387 of 2012 (O)

¶6

SA.709/2012 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. SATISH NAYAK, AGED 46 YEARS S/O.VAMAN NAYAK, 41/1444, VEEKSHANAM ROAD ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682018.

¶9

2. SREELAKSHMI SATISH, AGED 42 YEARS W/O.SATISH NAYAK, 41/1444, VEEKSHANAM ROAD ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682018.

¶10

BY ADVS.SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF

¶11

SMT.MOLLY JACOB

¶12

SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K.

¶13

SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER ASSISTANT MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., BANERJI ROAD ERNAKULAM.

¶16

2. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

¶17

ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.V.PARVATHI R1 BY ADV. SMT.REENA THOMAS

¶19

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

OP(DRT) NO.3387/2012

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE LOAN AS ON 14-9-2010.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF MORTGAGE LOAN AS ON 14-9-2010.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT.24-1-2011 RECEIVED BY 1ST PETITIONER ON 31-1-2011.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE/OBJECTION DT.17-2-2011 FROM 1ST PETITIONER'S COUNSEL.

¶27

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.17-2-2011 ISSUED BY THE R1.

¶28

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SE.13(4) DATED 9-82012 AFFIXED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.

¶29

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE SECURITISATION APPLICATION AS SA 709 OF 2012 FILED BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BY THE PETITIONERS.

¶30

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT.12-9-2012 IN IA 2488 OF 2012 IN SA 709 OF 2012 BY R2.

//True Copy//

PA to Judge

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ O.P.(DRT) NO. 3387 OF 2012

¶35

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

¶36

Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2012

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank.

¶39

Petitioners are defaulters to the respondent Bank. Therefore SARFAESI proceedings were initiated. Thereupon the petitioners filed SA NO.709/12 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. In that application, seeking stay of the proceedings, they filed IA 2488/12. In that IA, Tribunal passed Ext.P8 order dated 12^th of September, 2012 granting stay till 30/10/2010 subject to the petitioner remitting the amounts specified in para 5 of the order. Petitioners have not complied with the conditions imposed by the Tribunal, instead have filed this OP(DRT) challenging Ext.P8 order and for an order to prevent the Bank from proceeding further with the matter. Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank points out that more than `12.78 lakhs is due from the petitioners.

¶40

When the OP was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners confined her prayer of an instalment facility and undertook that they will withdraw SA No.709/12 filed by them.

¶41

:2 :

¶42

OP(DRT)No.3387/12

¶43

Now that the petitioners have withdrawn their contentions and have undertaken to withdraw the application itself, which is now pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and as they are not disputing the liability or the quantum, I am inclined to think that an opportunity should be extended to them.

¶44

Therefore, I dispose of this OP(DRT) with the following directions:-

¶45

(1)That the petitioners will be allowed to pay the amount due in 10 equal monthly instalments.

¶46

(2)The first instalment shall be paid on or before 15/11/12 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before the 15^th of every succeeding month.

¶47

(3)Before 15^th of November, 2012, the petitioners shall also withdraw the proceedings in SA 709/12.

¶48

(4)Subject to payment as above and withdrawal of the SA, coercive action will stand deferred and in case default is committed, respondents will be free to continue the recovery action already initiated.

¶49

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶50

Satish Nayak v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Nayak v. the Authorised Officer

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

K.G Sunil Vs Branch Manager

Gills Benny Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

S.S.D. Oil Mills Company Limited Vs Intelligence Officer (Ib)

K.J.Peter Vs Patil Ajith Bhagavat

George K.P. Vs Spl.Tahsildar(Rr)

C.Sebastian Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.