Allowed

M/S. Parcon Metalikks v. Union of India

Kerala HC22 Nov 2013OP (DRT)/4108/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court, in an original petition under the SARFAESI Act, directed the DRT Bangalore to reconsider a recall order within two months. The Court granted a stay on physical dispossession conditional on the petitioners remitting Rs. 25 lakhs by Dec 20, 2013 and another Rs. 25 lakhs by Jan 20, 2014.

What did the court decide?

Stay on physical dispossession conditional on remittals of Rs. 50 lakhs in two installments by December 2013 and January 2014, with direction to DRT Bangalore to reconsider the recall order.

M/S. Parcon Metalikks Vs Union of India — 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

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 4108 of 2013 (O)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 2607/2013 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 20.10.2013

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. M/S. PARCON METALIKKS NO 125, T.C PALYA MAIN ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BANGALORE 560 043 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI MOHAMMED AZEEM

¶9

2. MR.MOHAMMED AZEEM,PROPRIETOR, M/S.PARCON METALIKKS, NO 125, T.C PALYA MAIN ROAD RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BANGALORE 560 043

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT.OF BANKING AFFAIRS NEW DELHI 110001

¶13

2. DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD, `3RD FLOOR, BHAGAWATI TOWER, NO 52 33RD CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE 560 011 REP BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER

¶14

3. ASMI V.A ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, ADVOCATE , ERNAKULAM

¶15

R1 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG OF INDIA R2 BY SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, DHANALAKSHMI BANK

¶16

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

DCS

¶18

OP (DRT).No. 4108 of 2013 (O)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1 PHOTSTAT COPY OF SETTLEMENT OFFER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS

¶22

EXHIBIT P2	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 27-03-2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ORDER DATED 11-03-2013 ISSUED BY THE HONOURABLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,KARNATAKA BANGALORE
EXT.P4	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 THROUGH COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM KERALA

¶23

EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION AS I.R NO 3479/2013 IN S.A NO 295/2012 ON THE FILES OF DRT, KARNATAKA,BANGALORE

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶29

-------------------------------

¶30

O.P.(DRT) No.4108 of 2013

¶31

--------------------------------------- Dated this the 22^nd day of November, 2013

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore by order dated 11.03.2013 disposed of S.A. No. 295/2012 filed by the petitioners on the ground that the conditional order earlier passed was not complied with. The petitioners have filed I.R. No. 3479/2013 in S.A. No. 295/2012 to recall the order supported by another application to condone the delay. The symbolic possession of the property offered as security interest has already been taken and the bank has initiated steps to take actual physical possession. The bank asserts that the total dues outstanding comes to about Rupees Two Crores and Eighty Lakhs whereas the petitioners are eager and willing to discharge their liability by availing the benefit of one time settlement scheme if any.

¶34

I direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore to consider I.R. No. 3479/2013 and the application for condonation of delay in S.A. No. 295/2012 on or before 31.01.2014. The petitioners shall not be physically dispossessed from the property offered as security interest provided a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- is remitted towards the dues

¶35

O.P.(DRT) No.4108 of 2013 2

¶36

on or before 20.12.2013 and another sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- is deposited on or before 20.01.2014. The second respondent bank is free to surge ahead with the coercive proceedings in case the petitioners commit default in the compliance of the conditions above.

¶37

The Original Petition is disposed of.

¶38

SD/-

¶39

V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶40

DCS

M/S. Parcon Metalikks v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Parcon Metalikks v. Union of India

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

Badrudheen Vs the Administrator

V.Somasekharan Nair Vs the Authorised Officer,Canara Bank, Klm.

M/S.Talupula Engineering Company Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Santhosh Wilson Vs State Bank of India

S Arulnathan Vs Commercial Tax Officer

P.M.Manuel Vs State of Kerala