Disposed

Ashok Kumar v. the Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India

Kerala HC4 Feb 2016OP (DRT)/167/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court in the Debts Recovery Tribunal entertained a petition seeking exemption from the strict timeline of a Securitisation Application interim order. The court directed that the petitioner could treat his litigation as compliant if he pays the balance amount by an extended deadline before the merits proceeding continues.

What did the court decide?

Direction that payment of the balance Rs.4,80,000/- by 15.03.2016 shall be treated as compliance with the previous interim order, allowing the Securitisation Application to proceed on merits thereafte

Ashok Kumar Vs the Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/15TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 167 of 2015 (O)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. ASHOK KUMAR AGED 59 YEARS

¶8

HOUSE NO.20/468/A, (OLD NO.B.P.III/1122), PALLIYARA NEAR RAILWAY GATE, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2. SANTHAKUMARI AMMA HOUSE NO.20/468/A, (OLD NO.B.P.III/1122), PALLIYARA NEAR RAILWAY GATE, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

3. P.R.GANGADHARAN NAIR

¶11

KIZHAKKEPPILLA VEEDU, THALAYIL, BALARAMAPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

4. R.G.ARUNDEV S/O.P.R.GANGADHARAN NAIR, KIZHAKKEPPILLA VEEDU THALAYIL, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER

¶16

UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, STATUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶17

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNION BANK OF INDIA, KARAMANA BRANCH, KARAMANA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-690 002.

¶18

BY SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI

¶19

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

-1-

¶21

OP (DRT).No. 167 of 2015 (O)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶24

P1 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶25

P2 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER UNDER

¶26

SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT.

¶27

P3 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT.

¶28

P4 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT.

¶29

P5 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 13(3A) OF THE SARFAESI ACT, 2002.

¶30

P6 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 13(3A) OF THE SARFAESI ACT, 2002.

¶31

P7 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 13(3A) OF THE SARFAESI ACT, 2002.

¶32

P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING EXT.P5.

¶33

P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING EXT.P6.

¶34

P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING EXT.P7.

¶35

P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 22181/2015.

¶36

P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE C.J.M THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN MC NO. 819/2015.

¶37

P13 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE C.J.M THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN MC NO. 820/2015.

¶38

P14 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE C.J.M THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN MC NO. 821/2015.

¶39

P15 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN M.C NO. 819/2015.

¶40

P16 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN M.C NO. 820/2015.

¶41

P17 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN M.C NO. 821/2015.

¶42

P18 - TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER OF PALLICHAL VILLAGE BEARING NO. 2418/2015.

¶43

P19 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE SECURITISATION APPLICATION SA 473/2015.

¶44

-2-

¶45

P20 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN SECURITISATION APPLICATION SA 473/2015.

¶46

P21 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING PAYMENT OF CASH TO LOAN ACCOUNT.

¶47

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶52

¶53

O.P.(DRT) No. 167 of 2015

¶54

- - - - Dated this the 4^th day of February 2016

¶55

JUDGMENT

¶56

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P20 order, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), in Securitisation Application No.473/2015, whereby he was directed to pay an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the respondent bank on or before 31.12.2015 and a further sum of Rs.6,00,000/- on or before 31.01.2016, as a condition for grant of stay against recovery steps initiated by the respondent bank. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that as against the said direction, he has paid an amount of Rs.7,20,000/- and he only requires some time to discharge the balance liability of Rs.4,80,000/-, which he was to pay by 31.01.2016, as per Ext.P20 order.

¶57

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent bank.

¶58

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar and taking note of the plea of financial hardship urged on behalf of the petitioner, I

¶59

O.P.(DRT).No.167 of 2015

¶60

: 2 :

¶61

direct that, if the petitioner pays the balance amount of Rs.4,80,000/on or before 15.03.2016, then the said payment together with the payment of Rs.7,20,000/- already made, shall be treated as in compliance with the directions of the DRT in Ext.P20 order, and the DRT shall thereafter proceed with the adjudication of the Securitisation Application on merits.

¶62

The original petition is disposed as above.

¶63

Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶64

sm/

Ashok Kumar v. the Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar v. the Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India

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

Yedhu Krishnan Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Antony Jishan Vs the Authorized Officer

Mary Xavier Vs the Secretary to Government

Sanoj V.E Vs Syndicate Bank

Mahesh Vs the Authorised Officer

M.K.Soman Vs the Authorised Officer