Partly allowed

K.G Sunil v. Branch Manager

Kerala HC17 Oct 2012OP (DRT)/3440/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against notice for taking possession under SARFAESI Act. Court directs petitioners to pay specified installments by November and December 2012. Upon compliance, coercive action stays in abeyance and prior stay on possession proceedings is revived.

What did the court decide?

Coercive action kept in abeyance and prior stay on possession proceedings revived, conditional on payment of Rs.25 Lakhs by 15.11.2012 and Rs.10 Lakhs by 15.12.2012.

K.G Sunil Vs Branch Manager — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/25TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 3440 of 2012 (O)

¶6

SA.194/2012 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM CMP.1247/2012 of C.J.M.,THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

K.G SUNIL KUMAR , S/O K.M.GOPALAN, KARANAMKOTTA HOUSE, THOZHIYOOR P.O., THRISSUR, PIN 680520

¶9

K.G.DEEPAK, S/O K.M.GOPALAN, KARANAMKOTTA HOUSE, THOZHIYOOR P.O., THRISSUR PIN 680520

¶10

SUDEEP K.G. S/O K.M.GOPALAN, KARANAMKOTTA HOUSE, THOZHIYOOR P.O., THRISSUR PIN 680520

¶11

SMT. KARTHIYANI.K., W/O K.M.GOPALAN, KARANAMKOTTA HOUSE, THOZHIYOOR P.O., THRISSUR PIN 680520

¶12

BY ADV. SMT.VANAJA MADHAVAN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

BRANCH MANAGER, SBT, VADANAPPALLY BRANCH, THRISSUR 680614

¶15

CHIEF MANAGER (ADVANCES),(AUTHORISED OFFICER), REGIONAL VI, REGIONAL OFFICE, SBT, THRISSUR 680001

¶16

BY SC SRI.T. SETHUMADHAVAN

¶17

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(DRT).3440/12

APPENDIX

EXHIBIT

P1PHOTO COPY OF NOTICE DATED 8.10.12 ISSUED BY ADV.COMMISSIONER IN CMP 1247 OF 2012 OF CHIEF JUDL. MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR

¶22

/true copy/ PA To Judge

¶23

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶24

O.P.(DRT).3440/2012

¶25

Dated this the 17^th day of October, 2012

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P1, a notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur exercising its powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and informing the petitioners that the possession of the mortgaged assets will be taken over.

¶28

However, submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank shows that SARFAESI proceedings were initiated against the petitioners in August, 2011 for an outstanding liability of more than Rs.1 Crore. It is stated that, at that stage petitioners approached the DRT and filed S.A.194/12. When orders were awaited on the stay petition, they filed O.P.(DRT).1435/12 and that O.P was disposed of by judgment dated 27^th April, 2012, directing that orders shall be passed on the stay petition and that in the meanwhile, petitioners shall not be dispossessed. Accordingly, on 16.5.2012, DRT passed an

¶29

O.P.(DRT).3440/12

¶30

¶31

order requiring the petitioners to remit instalments of Rs.10 Lakhs, Rs.15 Lakhs, Rs.10 Lakhs and Rs.15 Lakhs on 20.6.2012, 20.7.2012, 21.8.2012 and 20.9.2012 respectively. In addition, petitioners were also required to pay Rs.2,00,000/- each every month. Learned counsel for the Bank also submits that in between 6.8.2012 and 13.9.2012, the total amount credited in the petitioners' account is Rs.15.65 Lakhs. Thus, there was failure on the part of the petitioners in complying with the interim order dated 16.5.2012 and therefore, the interim order passed was vacated by the Tribunal on 13.8.2012. It is thereafter, that Ext.P1 notice was issued, which is under challenge in this O.P.

¶32

Evidently therefore, not only that the petitioners are defaulters to the Bank but also that they have failed in complying with the interim order dated 16.5.2012 passed by the DRT, which led to the present situation. In such circumstances, the action taken by the Bank for recovery of its dues cannot be said to be illegal for any reason. However, fact remains that S.A.194/12 is still pending and although the petitioners have failed in complying

¶33

O.P.(DRT).3440/12

¶34

¶35

with the interim order, still, at least, at this stage if they can comply with that order by making the balance payment required, I see no reason why stay shall not be continued.

¶36

Therefore, I direct that the petitioners shall remit an amount of Rs.25 Lakhs on or before 15.11.2012 and a further sum of Rs.10 Lakhs on or before 15.12.2012. Subject to payment as above, further coercive action pursuant to Ext.P1 will be kept in abeyance and if payments are made as above, stay ordered by the Tribunal on 16.5.2012 will stand revived and remain in force unless and until it is modified by the Tribunal itself. On the other hand, if payment is not made as above, Bank will be free to continue the recovery action that they have already initiated.

¶37

O.P is disposed of as above.

¶38

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶39

mrcs

¶40

/true copy/ PA To Judge

K.G Sunil v. Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.G Sunil v. Branch Manager

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

P.a.Subramanian Vs P.I.Sheik Pareeth, District Collector

M/S Shalimar Restaurant Vs M/S Federal Bank Ltd.

P.C.Joseph Vs the Dist.Collector

Gills Benny Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

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

Anilkumar.K.G. Vs Authorized Fficer