Disposed

M/S.Sandeepani Smart Village v. the Syndicate Bank

Kerala HC9 Dec 2014OP (DRT)/93/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought directions for speedy disposal of interim applications regarding an auctioned property and maintenance of status-quo. The court directed the Receiving Tribunal to consider the applications within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the DRT, Ernakulam to consider and pass orders on I.A. Nos. 2359 and 2358/2014 at the earliest, within two weeks of receipt of the judgment copy.

M/S.Sandeepani Smart Village Vs the Syndicate Bank — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 93 of 2014 (O)

¶6

S.A.NO.306/2014 OF DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S) :

¶8

1. M/S.SANDEEPANI SMART VILLAGE, BUILDING NO.V/334, MANJAPRA, NEAR AKKUNNU TEMPLE, ANGAMALY-683 581, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.REGHUNATH A.T.

¶9

2. RAGHUNATH A.T.,

¶10

AICKARA HOUSE, MANJAPRA P.O, ANGAMALY-683 581.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY

¶12

SRI.SANIL JOSE SMT.K.K.JYOTHILAKSHMY SMT.S.SOUMYA ISSAC

¶13

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶14

1. THE SYNDICATE BANK, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER(RECOVERY CELL), SHANMUGHAM ROAD, COCHIN- 682 031.

¶15

2. THE SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER,

¶16

SYNDICATE BANK LTD., JANATHA BUILDING, CHURCH JUNCTION,

¶17

ANGAMALY BRANCH, ERNAKULAM -683 572.

¶18

3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER & CHIEF MANAGER,

¶19

SYNDICATE BANK, ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH,

¶20

VAKKACHAN TOWERS,CHITTOOR ROAD,

¶21

VADUTHALA, COCHIN- 682 023.

¶22

4. BRAHMACHARI PRAKASH,

¶23

5/49, MATHA AMRUTHANANDA MAYI MATH,

¶24

AMRUTHA PURI, KOLLAM -690 525.

¶25

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶26

R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ

¶27

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

Msd.

¶29

OP (DRT).No. 93 of 2014 (O)

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶32

EXT.P1:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF VALUATION REPORT OBTAINED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28-09-2009.
EXT.P2:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.4308/ROE/REC/MPV/534 DATED 21-05-2011.
EXT.P3:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 10-10-2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P4:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 13-10-2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 22-10-2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPT NO.9594 FOR RS.20 LAKHS.
EXT.P7:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.4313/OTS-SSV/442/2012 DATED 22-11-2012.
EXT.P8:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 24-11-2012 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT BANK.
EXT.P9:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 16-07-2014 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT OFFERING ONE TIME SETTLEMENT
EXT.P10:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE NO.4313-157-10 DATED 16-07-2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P11:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF E AUCTION NOTICE DATED 23-07-2014.
EXT.P12:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 03-09-2014 IN S.A.NO.306/2014, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.
EXT.P13:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 29-09-2014.
EXT.P14:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 29-09-2014.
EXT.P15:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 10-10-2014 IN I.A NOS.2272/2014 AND 2773/2014 IN SA.NO.306/2014, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶34

EXT.R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE APPROVED VALUER. EXT.R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT DATED 25.02.2014.

¶35

OP (DRT).No. 93 of 2014 (O)

¶36

EXT.R1(C):	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.05.2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.R1(D):	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NIL ISSUED BY THE MUTT AUTHORITIES TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXT.R1(E):	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE BANK TO THE MUTTI I.
EXT.R1(F):	TRUE COPY OF THE PAY-IN-SLIP AND LIST OF DEMAND DRAFTS.
EXT.R1(G):	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE AMRITHANANDA MAYI MUTT TO THE RESPONDENT BANK.
EXT.R1(H):	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AMRITHANANDAMAYI MUTT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXT.R1(I):	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.10.2011 IN W.P.(C).NO.18886 OF 2011.
EXT.R1(J):	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.02.2014 OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A.NO.1803 OF 2011.
EXT.R1(K):	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2014 IN R.P.NO.152 OF 2014.
EXT.R1(L):	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.11.2012 DULY ENDORSED BY THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.R1(M):	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.02.2014.
EXT.R1(N):	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE BANK TO THE PETITIONER AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY HIM.
EXT.R1(O):	TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT INDICATING RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT R1(J) BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.R1(P):	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SALE DATED 24.08.2011.
EXT.R1(Q):	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.07.2014 ISSUED BY THE BANK TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.R1(R):	TRUE COPY OF THE MATHRUBHUMI DATED 24.07.2014.
EXT.R1(S):	TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER INDIAN EXPRESS DATED 24.07.2014
EXT.R1(T):	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.07.2014 ALONG WITH THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE CHEQUES ENCLOSED THEREIN.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶41

O.P.(DRT)No. 93 OF 2014

¶42

Dated this the 9^th December, 2014

¶43

J U D G M E N T

¶44

The petitioners have approached this Court with the

¶45

following prayers:

¶46

“a) An order or direction, directing the Debt Recovery Tribunal to consider and pass orders in I.A.Nos.2359 and 2358/2014 in S.A. 306/2014 on its file as expeditiously as possible

¶47

b) An order or direction, directing that the status-quo with regard to the auctioned property shall be maintained as on 4/9/2014 till the Debts Recovery Tribunal passes such orders.

¶48

c) Grant such other reliefs as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and the circumstances of the case.”

¶49

When the matter came up for consideration on

¶50

20.10.2014, the following interim order was passed:

¶51

“The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier offered cheque for Rs.15 lakhs, which was not accepted and hence the petitioner is handing over two demand drafts for a total sum of Rs.15 lakhs. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the property concerned has already been sold and as such the respondent Bank is not in a

¶52

¶53

O.P.(DRT)No. 93 OF 2014

¶54

position to accept the demand drafts for the time being .

¶55

Issue urgent notice on admission to the 4^th respondent through Special Messenger.

¶56

The respondents are directed to file counter affidavit, also producing copies of the relevant documents in the meanwhile.”

¶57

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner , the

¶58

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank and also the learned Counsel for the bidder, who turned out to be the successful in the sale conducted on 04.09.2014.

¶59

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 as to the sequence of events.

¶60

The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the attempt made by the petitioner is not at all a bonafide

¶61

one and that steps are being pursued only to protract things somehow or other. It is further pointed out that, even though the DRT, Ernakulam granted an interim stay, subsequently, on finding that the petitioner did not satisfy the condition on time, the stay was vacated. Thereafter I.A. 2359 of 2014 in S.A. 306/2014 was filed and the petitioner rushed to this Court seeking for further indulgence, which is not liable to be

¶62

O.P.(DRT)No. 93 OF 2014

¶63

¶64

entertained, submits the learned Standing Counsel.

¶65

The learned Counsel for the bidder submits that, because of the pendency of the matter before this Court, the Bank is not taking any earnest effort to confirm the sale, as a result of which, much loss and hardships are being caused to the bidder as well.

¶66

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the only relief pressed before this Court is for issuance of a direction to cause the I.A. to be considered and finalised within a reasonable time.

¶67

After hearing both the sides, the Original Petition is disposed of directing the DRT, Ernakulam to consider and pass appropriate orders in the aforesaid I.A. at the earliest , at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the Original Petition before the DRT, Ernakulam for further steps.

¶68

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶69

M/S.Sandeepani Smart Village v. the Syndicate Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Sandeepani Smart Village v. the Syndicate Bank

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

Auria Keim Vs Padmakumar IPS

Jayan Vs the Authorised Officer

Assistant Executive Engineer Vs the Principal Agricultural Officer

Ibrahim Kutty Vs O Mohammed Aslam

K.T.Velayudhan Vs Prof (Dr.)v.N.Rajasekharan Pillai

Jimmy Jose Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board