Dismissed

Joseph Denny v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC28 Oct 2016OP (DRT)/102/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Debts Recovery Tribunal's order under Section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act. The High Court noted the availability of an alternative appeal remedy found equally efficacious and held that factual findings on notice service and reply were not interferable at this stage. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's original petition was dismissed with right to prefer an appeal reserved.

Joseph Denny Vs the Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/6TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 102 of 2016 (O)

¶6

SA. NO.45/2016 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, ERNAKULAM DATED 07/10/2016.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

JOSEPH DENNY, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O KURIAKKU, EDAKKALATHOOR HOUSE, ORUMANAYUR P.O., THRISSUR- 680 512.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SHRIHARI, SRI.VARUGHESE CHERIAN, SMT.S.S.JAYAKALA.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, KUNNAMKULAM BRANCH, P.B. NO.18, CENTRE PLAZA, THRISSUR ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM- 680 503

¶12

2. THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PIN-682 036.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.DILIP.

¶14

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

OP (DRT).No. 102 of 2016 (O)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED LOAN SANCTION LETTER BEARING REFERENCE NO.CR NO.982015 C US ID ACCOUNT NO.0 854 261 2282 SANCTIONING THE SAID CREDIT FACULTY ISSUED BY THE BANK.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 09-03-2016 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF HE SARFAESI ACT RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION/OBJECTION DATED 07-05-2016 UNDER SECTION 13(3-A) OF THE SARFAESI ACT ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL TRACK RECORD DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE INDIAN POSTAL DEPARTMENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 01-06-2016 UNDER SECTION 13(4) OF THE SARFAESI ACT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF HE NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION OF POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 21-06-2016 PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHUMI MALAYALAM DAILY DATED 23-06-2016.

¶25

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE S.A. NO.45/2016 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT .

¶26

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT (WITH ANNEXURES) FILED BY THE 1S RESPONDENT .

¶27

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07-10-2016 IN S.A. NO.45/2016 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** O.P (DRT) No.102 of 2016

¶33

Dated this the 28^th day of October 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Petitioner challenges Ext.P9, an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in S.A.No.45/2016. Admittedly, the petitioner has a remedy by filing an appeal before the appellate authority. The petitioner does not have a case that it is not an equally efficacious alternate remedy.

¶36

The main contention urged by the petitioner is that there is non-compliance of Section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act. It is apparently a question of fact and the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that notice had been properly served and the reply had been properly given, I do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the same, at this stage of the proceedings.

¶37

Reserving the right of the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate Tribunal, this original petition is dismissed.

¶38

jsr

Joseph Denny v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Denny v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anusha M.K. Vs University of Calicut

Kamalamma Vs the District Collector

Shine Ceramics Vs State of Kerala

Smt. Laila Mathew Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S.Modern Electricals Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt)

M/S.Royal Enfield Vs the Intelligence Inspector