Petitioner challenged the auction of his property pledged to the respondent bank after litigating in DRT and seeking state intervention. The court held no useful purpose to direct settlement since the bank had already authorized the sale.
Prayer for consideration of representation and direction to explore settlement of liability was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/25TH MAGHA 1934
OP (DRT).No. 621 of 2013 (O)
PETITIONER(S):
A.P. SAHADEVAN, S/O. DEVAKIAMMA, AGED 53 YEARS, ADAYARIL HOUSE, KAKKAD KARA, PIRAVOM VILLAGE-686 664.
BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PIRAVOM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIRAVOM-686 664.
2. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (KERALA & LAKSHDWEEP), 8TH FLOOR, K S H B BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682 036, REPRESENTED BY ITS RECOVERY OFFICER.
3. CHIEF MINISTER'S PUBLIC GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL CELL, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SC, SRI.SATHISH NINAN. R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.JOSEPH GEORGE.
THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
OP (DRT).No. 621 of 2013 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
O.P(DRT).No.621 of 2013
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2013
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader for the third respondent.
Petitioner is a defaulter to the respondent bank. To recover the dues, the bank filed O.A.165/08 before the second respondent Debts Recovery Tribunal. That was decreed. Finally, the property was proclaimed for sale as per Ext.P6. In the mean time, the petitioner also approached the DRT by filing I.A.368/13 in O.A.165/08. However, he was unsuccessful in getting any interlocutory order preventing sale by the bank. Again, the petitioner moved the third respondent for settlement of the liability. That representation made by the petitioner was forwarded to the bank. However, in the mean while, the property was put for sale on 4.2.2013 pursuant to Ext.P6. It is thereupon that this writ petition is filed and the prayer made by the petitioner is to consider his representation and to explore the
OP(DRT).621/13
2
possibility of settlement of the liability itself. In my view, no useful purpose will be served by issuing any such direction for the reason that the bank had already sold the property in pursuance of Ext.P6 proclamation of sale. Therefore, the remedy, if any, available to the petitioner is only before the DRT. With that liberty, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/ANTONY DOMINIC Judge
kkb.14/2.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether directions to the bank to attempt settlement of liability were necessary given the property was already proclaimed for sale.
Whether the writ petition regarding the auction of pledged property should be dismissed or remanded.
A.P. SAHADEVAN
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (KERALA & LAKSHDWEEP)
CHIEF MINISTER'S PUBLIC GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL CELL
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
