Disposed

D.Rajkumar v. Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC1 Apr 2013WP(C)/8010/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a bank's sale notice. The Court observed that proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) were continuing and the petitioner had filed an impleading application there. It directed the petitioner to seek relief before the DRT.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to seek relief before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

D.Rajkumar Vs Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd. — Kerala HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2013/11TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 8010 of 2013 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

D.RAJKUMAR, S/O.DAMODARAN, KOCHUVILAYIL, PALACE WARD KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN SMT.K.PUSHPAVATHI SRI.JOSE JONES JOSEPH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, CHINNAKADA KOLLAM-691001.

¶11

2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.NO.960, CHINNAKKADA KOLLAM-691001.

¶12

3. DIJU RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNAN, AMBADI HOUSE, CURZON NAGAR HOUSE NO.167, CUTCHERY WARD, CURZON ROAD KOLLAM WESTVILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶13

4. DEEPU RAMAKRISHNAN,

¶14

S/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNAN, AMBADI HOUSE, CURZON NAGAR HOUSE NO.167, CUTCHERY WARD, CURZON ROAD KOLLAM WESTVILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SMT.D.P.RENU

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-042013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 8010 of 2013 (A)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 29.09.2011 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 3 & 4.

¶21

EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT BEARING O.S.353/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT,KOLLAM.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF INJUNCTION DATED 18/04/2012 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT,KOLLAM IN I.A.556/2012 IN O.S.353/2012.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 20/2/2013 PUBLISHED IN KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.03.2013,SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2

¶25

EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 18.3.2013 EVIDENCING ISSUANCE OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P6(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 18.3.2013 EVIDENCING ISSUANCE OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶28

EXT.R2(a): COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.900/2013 IN S.A.NO.219/2013 DT.18.3.2013 OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶29

//TRUE COPY//

¶30

PA TO JUDGE

¶31

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -----------------------------W.P.(C) No.8010 OF 2013

¶32

Dated this the 1^st day of April, 2013

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

~~~~~~~~~~~

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. Despite service of notice there is no appearance on behalf of respondents 3 and 4. Petitioner says that he entered into an agreement with respondents 3 and 4 for the purchase of a property. According to him, the agreement was not performed by respondents 3 and 4 and therefore, he filed O.S.No.354/2003 before the Sub court Kollam, which is pending. Meanwhile, bank initiated sale proceedings against the property and on the basis the same was mortgaged by the 3^rd respondent and that default was committed. It is thereupon the petitioner to file this writ petition, with a prayer to quash Ext.P4 sale notice issued by the bank. Considering the submissions made at the bar, this Court passed an order dated 21.3.2013 granting stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 subject to the petitioner remitting 50% of the amount due from the 3^rd respondent to the bank. However, payment was not made.

¶36

W.P.(C) No.8010/2013

¶37

¶38

It appears that in the meanwhile 3^rd respondent has filed S.A.No.219/2013 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam and has obtained an order of stay subject to payment of Rs.10 lakhs. A copy of the order has been produced by the bank as Ext.R2(a). It was also submitted by the bank that in compliance with the said order, payment has been made.

¶39

According to the petitioner, he has already made an application to get himself impleaded in the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Parties also submit that the case is coming up for orders before the court today.

¶40

Now that the Tribunal is ceased of the entire proceedings and as the petitioner also has filed an impleading petition, which is pending, it is for the petitioner to get orders on his application and also to adjudicate his grievance before the Tribunal itself.

¶41

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶42

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶43

ps/1/4

D.Rajkumar v. Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Rajkumar v. Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

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

Vijaya Mohanan Vs Authorised Officer

V.v.Venugopal, Secretary, Perinthalmanna Taluk Rural Housing Society Ltd. NO.270 Vs Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram

Sudha Girish Vs the Manager, Federal Bank

A.P.Avaracha Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

S.Bhuvaneswari & Another Vs Commercial Tax Officer & Another

K.M.Rajan Vs Chief Manager, Federal Bank