Allowed

N.O Jose v. Debt Recovery Tribunal

Kerala HC7 Apr 2014OP (DRT)/44/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition directing the Debt Recovery Tribunal to consider and finalise a stay application regarding attached property within three months without issuing notice to the third respondent at that stage.

What did the court decide?

Directed the DRT to finalise the stay application and counter-objections within three months; no notice to the 3rd respondent required.

N.O Jose Vs Debt Recovery Tribunal — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/17TH CHAITHRA, 1936

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 44 of 2014 (O)

¶6

O.A.NO.301 OF 2013 OF THE HON'BLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM (KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP)

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

N.O.JOSE, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.LATE. ONOONNY, NEDIYUZHATHIL HOUSE, C.C.37/1453, K.K.ROAD, COCHIN - 682 017.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY SMT.K.S.SUMITHA SMT.K.JASMIN BABY SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR SMT.C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH SMT.RENJINI S.NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, 5TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682 036, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶12

2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE, ZONAL OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682 036. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.

¶13

3. IBRAHIM.P.M., S/O.MAITHEEN P.P., 37/2080 C, PARACKAL PUTHENPURA HOUSE, NEAR JEWEL PERAL APARTMENTS, AZAD ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI - 682 017.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R2 BY SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC SRI.SATHISH NINAN, SC

¶15

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

OP (DRT).No. 44 of 2014 (O)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.301/2013 ALONG WITH COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.2450/13 ALONG WITH DOCUMENTS.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶28

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

¶29

O.P. (DRT) No.44 OF 2014

¶30

Dated this the 7^th day of April, 2014.

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶33

prayers:

¶34

“i) To issue a original petition of mandamus and command the 1^st respondent to dispose of I.A. No.2450/13 in O.A. No.301/2013 pending on its files within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court.

¶35

ii) To pass any other and such other orders as this Honourable Court deem fit to pass in the nature and circumstances of the case.

¶36

iii) To award the cost of this proceedings.”

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, there

¶38

was some financial transaction between the respondent Bank and the 3^rd respondent. The flat bearing No.12B on the 12^th floor of the building complex under the name ‘Surya Enclave’ and the car park bearing No.12B on the ground floor of the said building in the property comprised in Survey Nos. 378 & 384 of Elamkulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District were purchased by

¶39

the petitioner from the 3^rd respondent in the year 2011, paying

¶40

O.P. (DRT) No.44 OF 2014

¶41

¶42

the entire agreed sale consideration. Ever since the execution of the said sale deed, the property is being enjoyed by the petitioner with absolute ownership, exclusive possession and clear and marketable title. It was on a fine morning that, the petitioner was known that the flat came to be attached by virtue of the order passed by the D.R.T. in O.A. No.301 of 2013 preferred by the Bank against the 3^rd respondent, for realisation of the amount stated as due from the 3^rd respondent under a loan transaction.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the

¶44

loan facility was actually availed by the 3^rd respondent in connection with purchasing another flat bearing No.'12A' and in any view of the matter, the attachment effected in the year 2013, cannot adversely affect the rights and interest of the petitioner, who purchased the property/flat way back in the year, 2011. It was in the said circumstances that, the petitioner chose to produce all the relevant documents and sought to spare the property as above, by filing Ext.P2 I.A. No.2450 of 2013 as early

¶45

O.P. (DRT) No.44 OF 2014

¶46

¶47

as in August, 2013. But the matter is being simply adjourned on every occasion and now the same stands listed on 09.06.2014. The prayer is to cause the same to be considered and finalised within a reasonable time and hence the writ petition.

¶48

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that, the Bank is taking every earnest efforts to file a detailed objection to the I.A. and that the Bank does not have any objection in causing the matter to be finalised by the D.R.T. In view of the limited extent of relief sought for, this Court does not find it necessary to issue notice to the 3^rd respondent for the time being.

¶49

The above petition is disposed of, directing the D.R.T., Ernakulam to consider and finalise Ext.P2 I.A. and the statement of objections, if any, filed from the part of the respondents by passing appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties, at the earliest, at any rate, within ‘three months’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶50

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with

¶51

O.P. (DRT) No.44 OF 2014

¶52

¶53

a copy of the writ petition, before the 1^st respondent, for further steps.

¶54

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

N.O Jose v. Debt Recovery Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.O Jose v. 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

Jamal K.K. Vs P.I.Sheik Pareeth

Saji George Vs P.I.Sheik Pareeth

Sabeena Vs James Rajakumar

Praveen Babu Vs D.T.S.Rao

Thomas Samuel Vs State of Kerala

Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank Vs Ratheesh