Disposed

Bose Methgar v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC29 Mar 2016OP (DRT)/36/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an opinion under the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the court granted the petitioner two weeks to extend the deadline for complying with a prior order directing payment of interest. This extension was allowed citing financial hardship, pending further hearing on the merits of the security application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted an extension of time to pay Rs. 2 lakhs by 10.05.2016 and a further Rs. 2 lakhs by 10.06.2016 as compliance with the DRt order.

Bose Methgar 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.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/9TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 36 of 2016 (O)

¶6

S.A.NO.165/2016 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

BOSE METHGAR, S/O.P.P.METHGAR, AGED 45 YEARS, ROSE HOUSE, MARIYA NAGAR, ERAPPAKUZHI, KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.N.SASI

¶10

SMT.T.M.BINITHA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, TRIVANDRUM, PIN -695 001.

¶13

2. JOJAN MATHEW, VETTICAD HOUSE, KERALADITHYAPURAM, POWDIKONAM, TRIVANDRUM -695 587.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH, S.C

¶15

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

OP (DRT).No. 36 of 2016 (O)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE 13(2) NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 23.10.2014. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 08.05.2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 13.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE S.A NO.165/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN S.A NO.165/2016 BY THE FILE OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DATED 11.03.2016.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶22

---------------------------

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. O.P.(DRT).No. 36 of 2016

¶28

............................................................. Dated this the 29^th day of March, 2016

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P5 order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs on or before 29.03.2016 and a further amount of Rs.2 lakhs on or before 20.04.2016 as a condition for grant of stay against recovery steps initiated by the respondent bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner would cite financial hardship and pray for an extension of time to comply with the directions in Ext.P5 order. Taking note of the plea of financial hardship urged on behalf of the petitioner, I direct that, if the petitioner pays Rs.2 lakhs on or before 10.05.2016 and a further amount of Rs.2 lakhs on or before 10.06.2016, then the said payments shall be treated as in compliance with the directions in Ext.P5 order and the Debt Recovery Tribunal shall thereafter proceed with the hearing of these securitisation application on merits.

¶31

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶32

mns/29.3.16

Bose Methgar v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bose Methgar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Narniat Pharmasecuticals and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Bank of India

Mathew Arackal Cleetus Vs State Bank of Travancore

R & D Foams Vs the State of Kerala

M.K.Ramakrishnan Vs K.C.Vijayakumar

R.Ananthakumar Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal

Harishkumar K.A Vs the Authorised Officer