Disposed

Kiraj Jose v. State Bank of Travancore

Kerala HC6 Nov 2014OP (DRT)/95/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the State Bank of Travancore to file an objection within two weeks to the petitioner's application to set aside an ex parte order in a Recovery Tribunal case. The Tribunal was ordered to consider the application and any condonation of delay within one month after giving a hearing opportunity. The writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Director State Bank of Travancore to file objection within two weeks; Directed Debt Recovery Tribunal to consider application and pass orders within one month after providing hearing opportunity.

Kiraj Jose Vs State Bank of Travancore — 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

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/15TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 95 of 2014 (O)

¶6

O.A.NO.150/2012 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S) / DEFENDANTS IN O.A NO 150/12 :

¶8

1. KIRAN JOSE, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.LATE JOSEPH, KALAYATHINAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PROPRIETOR KIRAN RUBBERS POOVARANAY P.O, KOTTAYAM.

¶9

2. ROSAMMA, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.LATE JOSEPH, KALAYATHINAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PROPRIETOR KIRAN RUBBERS POOVRANAY P.O, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.T.A.JOY

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) / APPLICANT IN O.A NO.150/12 :

¶12

STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, POOVARANY BRANCH, KOTTAYAM REP BY THE BRANCH MANAGER.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN

¶14

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

OP (DRT).No. 95 of 2014 (O)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 : THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR SETTING ASIDE THE EXPARTE ORDER AS INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION IN O.A.NO.150/12 BEFORE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT ERNAKULAM

¶20

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION IN DRC 4081 BEFORE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶31

prayers :

¶32

“i. To issue appropriate directions to Debts Recovery Tribunal at Ernakulam to take up Ext P1 application in O.A. No. 150/2012 and to consider those application on merits, within a time limit, in the interest of justice. ii. To issue writ, order or directions to the respondents in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to keep in abeyance the further proceedings of recovery, till Ext. P1 applications are taken up and considered on merits, by Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam in the interest of justice.

¶33

iii. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam to consider Ext. P2 objection on merits and to keep in abeyance recovery proceedings, till then, in the interest of justice.

¶34

iv. To grant such other reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.

¶35

O.P. (DRT) No. 95 of 2014

¶36

: 2 :

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being aggrieved of the course and proceedings pursued by the respondent Bank, S.A. has already been filed. Reference is also made to O.A. No. 150 of 2012 filed by the Bank, wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as the defendant. In the course of proceedings, there occurred inadvertent omission on the part of the concerned lawyer, by virtue of which, there was no representation and the O.A. came to be decreed ex parte. On coming across the factual position, the petitioner has moved the Tribunal by filing Ext. P1 application for setting aside ex parte order along with another I.A. for condoning the delay. Since the said petitions are still to be considered and finalized, irreparable loss and hardships are being caused to the petitioner. Hence the writ petition.

¶38

Heard the learned standing counsel for the respondent Bank as well, who seeks for time to file objection to the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex parte order in O.A.

¶39

In view of the facts and circumstances, the respondent Bank is directed to file objection, if any, to Ext. P1 [I.A. No.2491 of 2014] within two weeks from today. The DRT Ernakulam is directed to consider and pass final orders on Ext. P1 (I.A. No. 2491

¶40

O.P. (DRT) No. 95 of 2014

¶41

: 3 :

¶42

of 2014) application to set aside ex parte order and I.A. if any for condoning the delay in filing the said petition, after giving an opportunity of hearing, at the earliest, at any rate, within one month thereafter.

¶43

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the DRT, Ernakulam for further steps.

¶44

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,

¶47

(JUDGE)

¶48

kmd

Kiraj Jose v. State Bank of Travancore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiraj Jose v. State Bank of Travancore

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

Chellamma Gandhi Vs Sri.T.Bhaskaran

Zibitt Software Technologies Pvt.Ltd Vs Issac K.Thayyil

Vilasini Vs K.a.Francis

Muneer.K Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Reghunathan Nair Vs the Authorised Officer

Jose Thomas Vs Kerala Financial Corporation