Disposed

Hassan v. the Debt Recovery Tribunal

Kerala HC24 Oct 2013OP (DRT)/3415/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a sale proclamation issued against the petitioner. The Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked for such disputes and directed an adjournment to enable the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal or Banking Ombudsman.

What did the court decide?

Sale deferred by three weeks; writ petition disposed.

Hassan Vs the Debt Recovery Tribunal — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/2ND KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 3415 of 2013 (O)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN DRC 1543/2013 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

HASSAN, AGED 48 YEARS S/O KOYAKUTTY HAJI, THONIKARA HOUSE THACHINGANADAM P.O, PATTIKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTIRCT

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682016

¶12

2. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PERINTHALMANNA BRANCH REPRSENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER MALAPPURAM DISTIRCT, KERALA 679322

¶13

3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, THE DEBT'S RECOVCERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682016

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SC, SBT R2 BY ADV. SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR

¶15

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

OP (DRT).No. 3415 of 2013 (O)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 10-03-2010
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 15-03-2013
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE DATED 30-06-2010 OF THE ICICI BANK LTD
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE REMITTANCE SLIPS OF THE DIFFERENT DATES ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED NIL
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION OF SALE ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN DRC NO 1543 DATED 20-08-2013

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

SMM

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶25

= = = = = = = = = = = O.P.(DRT) No.3415 of 2013

¶26

= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 24^th day of October, 2013

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Ext.P6 sale proclamation by the Recovery Officer is

¶29

impugned on the ground that the petitioner has complied with Ext.P2 proceedings of the Adalath. The bank points out that Ext.P2 proceedings at the instance of local branch manager has not been approved by its head office. The bank contends that a further sum of Rs.16 lakhs would be due from the petitioner even if the One Time Settlement Scheme benefit is extended.

¶30

The petitioner can move the Debts Recovery Tribunal in case he is aggrieved by Ext.P6 sale proclamation. The petitioner can also move the Banking Ombudsman if the terms of settlement in an Adalath are not adhered to. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to settle the disputes of this nature.

¶31

The sale slated on 29-10-2013 is deferred by three weeks to enable the petitioner to work out his remedy as above. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶32

V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶33

smm

¶34

Hassan v. the Debt Recovery Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hassan v. the Debt Recovery Tribunal

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

State Bank of India Vs Martin Kottakkal

Gopakumar Vs District Collector

Shaji Varghese Vs Authorized Officer

Tennsi Joseph Vs Nabeera Beegum

Mahendra Kumar M. Vs Ramesh

Beena P. George Vs State of Kerala