Dismissed

M.Hidayath v. the Authorized Officer

Kerala HC1 Jun 2015OP (DRT)/22/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined relief regarding a challenge to a Debt Recovery Tribunal order as it was amenable to appellate remedy. The city also dismissed the petitioner's petition for private sale adjournment due to lack of materialization and failure to remit a directed sum, allowing no coercive action for ten days.

What did the court decide?

Relief declined on challenge to DRAT; coercive action stayed for ten days.

M.Hidayath Vs the Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2015/11TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 22 of 2015 (O)

¶6

SA 29/2015 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶7

PETITIONER/APPLICANT IN SA 29/2015 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL:

¶8

M.HIDAYATH, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.HABEEB, MAMPILLIL HOUSE, PADA NORTH.P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 518.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRIP.S.SUJETH SRI.NIXON PAUL SRI.E.S.SANEEJ

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS IN SA 29/15 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL:

¶11

1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., KARUNAGAPPALLY BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 518.

¶12

2. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KARUNAGAPPALLY BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 518.

¶13

3. ABDUL MUJEEB, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, PROPRIETOR, M/S.ETHIHAD TRADERS, AJMI MANZIL, NEELIKULAM, K.S.PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 690 544.

¶14

4. MUHAMMED KUNJU, S/O.LATE VAVA KUNJU, HOUSE, KALLOOR, NEELIKULAM, K.S.PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 690 544.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.A.ANTONY

¶16

SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY

¶17

R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.HARIKUMAR

¶18

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

mbr/

¶20

OP (DRT).No. 22 of 2015 (O)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXT.P1: THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/01/2015 FROM THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶24

EXT.P2: THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 09/02/2015. EXT.P3: THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT DATED 09/01/2015 SHOW RELEASE OF RS.5 LAKHS.

¶25

EXT.P4: THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/12/2013 IN WPC.28979/13 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶26

EXT. P5: THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE RESPONDENT 1 AND 2.

¶27

EXT. P6 : THE TRUE COPY OF APPEAL IS AIR(SA) 298/15 BEFORE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI.

¶28

EXT. P7 : THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF STAY PETITION IN AIR(SA) 298/15 BEFORE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶35

*******************************************************

¶36

O.P.(DRT) No.22 of 2015

¶37

*******************************************************

¶38

Dated this the 1^st day of June, 2015

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. It is admitted that Ext.P1 is amenable for appellate remedy before the Debts Recovery

¶41

Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, with liberty to challenge Ext.P1, the relief is declined.

¶42

The petitioner further submits that he may be permitted to arrive at consensus to sell the property by private sale and directed to adjourn the Securitization proceedings till the proposed attempt is materialized. It is to be noted that this Original Petition was filed as early as on 18.2.2015 and in spite of the lapse of last four months; nothing has been materialised. The

¶43

petitioner was also directed to remit Rs.5 lakhs. The petitioner did not remit the amount.

¶44

O.P.(DRT) No.22 of 2015 2

¶45

It is submitted by the counsel for the Bank that the

¶46

liability is more than Rs.1 Crore.

¶47

In that view of the matter, this O.P.(DRT) is dismissed. To work out the petitioner's alternate remedy, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for a period of ten days from

¶48

today.

¶49

Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶50

M.Hidayath v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Hidayath v. the Authorized Officer

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

C.N. Purushothaman Vs E.K. Bharat Bhushan

Eldho Vs Mr.Rajamanikyam

Saju Vs Sajeevan

P.R.Mohan Vs Najuma

Sindhu K.K. Vs Aparna .T

Pramodkumar.N Vs the Regional Transport Officer,Ernakulam