Writ petition dismissed as debt recovery tribunal order was agreed and no infirmity. Court declined to interfere in private property purchase arrangement under SARFAESI Act.
Interference in the matter was refused and I.A. No.622 of 2016 for extension of time was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2016/20TH VAISAKHA 1938 OP (DRT).No. 31 of 2016 (O) ----------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN SA 328/2014 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DATED 13.11.2015
PETITIONER(S):
ROY KURIAN S/O.KURIAKOSE, THANNIKKOTTU HOUSE, CHELADU PO, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN 686 691, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI. ELDHO CHERIAN SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD M.G.ROAD BRANCH, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, BRANCH CODE -0025, REG. OFFICE AT SIB HOUSE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR.
2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE AT SIB BUILDING, INFO PARK ROAD, RAJAJI VALLEY PO, KAKKANADU, KOCHI 682 039. R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.) R1,R2 BY ADV. SMT.S.AMBILY R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.DILIP R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN ANTONY R BY SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK
THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (DRT).No. 31 of 2016 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
NIL
// True copy //
P.A. To Judge
sou.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
--------------------------------------------------O.P(DRT). No. 31 of 2016 and I.A. No.622 of 2016 in O.P(DRT). No. 31 of 2016
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2016
The original petition is filed challenging Ext.P11 an order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in I.A. No.53 of 2016 in Securitisation application No.328 of 2014 by which the Tribunal extended time for payment up to 15.2.2016 on certain conditions.
O.P.(DAT).31/16
2
O.P.(DAT).31/16 3
to assign the property was given under certain special circumstances. The petitioner had initially offered to settle the entire liability before 31.2.2015. Though part of the amount was paid entire liability was not settled and there after the application was filed before the Tribunal for extension of time, which was allowed on agreement. That apart, this Court had shown enough indulgence to permit him to pay the amount by virtue of the interim order dated 23.3.2016. Still no action has been taken by the petitioner to remit the amount and therefore there is no reason why any direction may be issued in the above original petition.
O.P.(DAT).31/16
4
Application based on an agreement between the parties. Still further, Ext.P11 indicates further agreement for extension of time. That apart an undertaking has also been given by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, when the respondent Bank does not agree for further extension of time, this Court will not be justified in issuing any direction especially in regard to the rights and obligations which are already covered by the orders issued by the Tribunal in Ext.P11. Ext.P11 does not suffer from any infirmity as it is an agreed order. Though this Court had shown some indulgence, the petitioner could not avail of the opportunity. In such circumstances, I do not think that any further extension of time is required. I.A. No.622 of 2016 is dismissed.
Hence this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
sou.25/5
// True copy //
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court should extend time for payment of balance amount in a private arrangement for property purchase under SARFAESI Act guidelines.
Whether the agreed order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal suffering from infirmity warrants interference.
Whether directions be issued despite the respondent Bank's refusal to agree for further extension of time.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ROY KURIAN
SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD
A.M. SHAFFIQUE
Smt. USHA SATHYANARAYANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
