Dismissed

International Mechentise Trades & Pvt. Ltd. v. the Recovery Officer

Kerala HC3 Sept 2012WP(C)/19596/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged attachment orders by the Debt Recovery Tribunal as a violation of a prior order. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that alternative effective statutory remedies were available to the petitioners, rendering this challenge inappropriate for a Writ Court.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable due to the availability of alternative effective remedies.

International Mechentise Trades & Pvt. Ltd. Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/12TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 19596 of 2012 (Y)

¶6

DRC.NO.2127 IN OA.298/2002 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

INTERNATIONAL MECHENTISE TRADES & PVT. LTD., G:211 MAIN AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶9

SRI. M.A.K. AZAD.

¶10

M/S. M.A.K.AGRO COMMODITIES TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. G-211 MAIN AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶11

SRI. M.A.K.AZAD.

¶12

M.A.K.AZAD

¶13

G-211 MAIN AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36.

¶14

FAREEDA HAJI VAHEED

¶15

G-211 MAIN AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36.

¶16

BY ADVS.SRI.RAJU JOSEPH (SR.)

¶17

SRI.C.N.MIDHUN

¶18

RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

THE RECOVERY OFFICER OFFICE OF THE RECOVERY OFFICER DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP) 8TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR COCHIN-36.

¶20

THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD. HEAD OFFICE, THRISSUR-1 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER LEGAL ZONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682001.

¶21

BY SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN,SC,DHANALAKSHMI BAN

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.P.(C).19596/12

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶26

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER PASSED IN WPC 4796/2008 DATED 23-012012.

¶27

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN R.P.NO. 250/2012 IN WPC 4796/2008 DATED 29-032012.

¶28

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION TOGETHER WITH THE SCHEDULE OF PROPERTIES.

¶29

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN DRC NO. 2127 IN O.A. 298/2002/DLB DATED 04-04-2012.

¶30

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 2ND RESPONDETN DATED 23-04-2012.

¶31

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF VALUATION STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE APPROVED VALU ENGAGE BY THE BANK DATED 20-09-2006.

¶32

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT RECOVERY OFFICE DATED 14-05-2012.

¶33

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF ATTACHMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 25-06-2012 IN RESPECT OF ITEM NO. 1 TO 5.

¶34

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF ATTACHMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 25-06-2012.

¶35

/true copy/ PA To Judge

¶36

mrcs

¶37

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶38

W.P.(C).19596/2012

¶39

Dated this the 3^rd day of September, 2012

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

Challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P8 and P9 orders of attachment passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, on applications made by the respondent bank. The main ground on which the challenge raised is that the attachment is in violation of Ext.P2 order.

¶42

In my view, if the petitioner has such a grievance, the proper course which the petitioner should have adopted is to have moved the Tribunal by availing of the statutory remedies.

¶43

In view of the availability of such an alternative and effective remedy, I see no reason to entertain the writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders.

¶44

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶45

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶46

mrcs

¶47

/true copy/ PA To Judge

International Mechentise Trades & Pvt. Ltd. v. the Recovery Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

International Mechentise Trades & Pvt. Ltd. v. the Recovery Officer

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

E.Sajeendran Vs the Secretary, Elayavoor Grama Panchayath

A.Sudheer Vs Punalur Municipality

K.v.Skaria Vs Poothrika Grama Panchayath

K. Raveendran Vs Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs P.M.Jacob

Amrutha V.P. Vs Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.