Disposed

M/S. Global Granites v. the Authorized Officer, South Indian Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC12 Jan 2016OP (DRT)/3/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted the petitioner 21 days to pay a balance of Rs.5 lakhs to achieve compliance with the Debt Recovery Tribunal's order, staying further recovery steps, including presentation of a cheques issued by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted 21 days to pay Rs.5 lakhs; recovery steps including presentation of cheque stayed; bank directed to return cheque upon payment.

M/S. Global Granites Vs the Authorized Officer… — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/22ND POUSHA, 1937

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 3 of 2016 (O)

¶6

--------------------------SA.NO. 444/2015 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER :

¶8

M/S. GLOBAL GRANITES REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER

¶9

MR. K.M.MUNEER THEKKEPOTTA P.O., PUTHUKODE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD-678 687.

¶10

BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.ANEESH

¶11

SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) SRI.ADARSH KUMAR SRI.BIJU VARGHESE ABRAHAM SRI.DILEEP CHANDRAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶13

1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, SIB BUIDLING INFOPARK ROAD, RAJAGIRI VALLEY P.O., KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 039.

¶14

2. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, COCHIN-36.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE, SC R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASGI

¶16

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

...2/-

¶19

OP (DRT).No. 3 of 2016 (O)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM IN SA NO.444/2015.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -------------------------------------------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. O.P.(DRT).No.3 of 2016

¶29

............................................................. Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner, who has filed S.A.No.444 of 2015 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, is aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondent bank for recovery of defaulted loan amounts, pursuant to his non-compliance with the directions in Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal that required him to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs on or before 11.12.2015, as a condition for restraining the respondent bank from taking further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act against his property. When the matter came up for admission on 08.01.2016, this Court had granted an interim order against dispossession of the petitioner till today. When the matter was taken up for orders today, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, an application preferred by him for extension of time to comply with the directions in Ext.P2 order has been dismissed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, although, he has not obtained the certified copy of the said order till date. It is his submission that, in compliance with the directions in Ext.P2, he has

¶32

-2-

¶33

O.P.(DRT). No.3 of 2016

¶34

already remitted an amount of Rs.5 lakhs and only a balance amount of Rs.5 lakhs needs to be paid in order to comply with the directions in Ext.P2. It is his submission that he has, at the instance of the respondent bank, issued a cheque dated 11.01.2016 and the respondent bank is now taking steps to present the said cheque pursuant to the default committed by the petitioner in complying with the directions in Ext.P2 order.

¶35

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent bank and the learned Standing counsel for the 2^nd respondent Tribunal.

¶36

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that the interest of justice would be met by permitting the petitioner to remit the balance amount of Rs.5 lakhs, that was directed to be paid in Ext.P2 order, on or before 31.01.2016. Accordingly, if the petitioner pays the amount of Rs.5 lakhs by 31.01.2016, then the said payment, together with the payment of Rs. 5 lakhs already effected by the petitioner, shall be treated as in compliance with the directions in Ext.P2 order and the Debt Recovery Tribunal

¶37

-3-

¶38

O.P.(DRT). No.3 of 2016

¶39

shall proceed to dispose S.A.No.444 of 2015 on merits after hearing the parties.

¶40

I make it clear that recovery steps against the property of the petitioner, including steps for presentation of the cheque dated 11.01.2016 issued by the petitioner to the respondent bank, shall be kept in abeyance till 31.01.2016. It is further made clear that on the petitioner paying the balance amount of Rs.5 lakhs as directed in this judgment, the respondent bank shall forthwith return the cheque obtained from the petitioner, to him.

¶41

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶42

mns/12.01.16

M/S. Global Granites v. the Authorized Officer, South Indian Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Global Granites v. the Authorized Officer, South Indian Bank Ltd.

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

Venukumar K. Vs State Bank of India

M/S.Neha Leathers Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Zakir M.A. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S.Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan M S Vs State Bank of Travancore

M.Narayanan Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes