Dismissed

Thomsons Specialty Packagings and Exports (India) Ltd. v. State Bank of Travancore

Kerala HC8 Jun 2016OP (DRT)/42/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a company represented by its Managing Director, filed a writ seeking orders for a one-time settlement with the bank and directing the bank not to settle with others. The petitioner argued that the bank had received a higher proposal from a different creditor. The court held that since a reply was provided by the bank regarding the proposal, no further direction was necessary. An in

What did the court decide?

The interim order dated 07.06.2016 was vacated, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Thomsons Specialty Packagings and Exports… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/18TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 42 of 2016 (O)

¶6

---------------------------OA.NO. 630/1998 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S) :

¶8

1. THOMSONS SPECIALITY PACKAGINGS AND EXPORTS (INDIA) LTD 17/1540, P.T. JACOB ROAD, SANTHOM JUNCTION, THOPPUMPADY, COCHIN-5, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR N.T.JOSEPH.

¶9

2. N.T.JOSEPH. S/O. LATE N.P. THOMAS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 16/107, NEDIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.T.JACOB ROAD, KOCHI-682 005.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶12

1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH, ZONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682 036, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER.

¶13

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM-695 012.

¶14

3. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 036.

¶15

R1& R2 BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SC

¶16

SRI.SATHISH NINAN R3 BY ADVS. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASGI SMT.I. SHEELA DEVI, CGC

¶17

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

...2/-

¶20

OP (DRT).No. 42 of 2016 (O)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXT. P1. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17/12/2004 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXT. P2. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24/12/2004 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

EXT. P3. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16/3/2015 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER.

¶26

EXT. P4. TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER SUBMITTED BY SRI.MATHEW VAZHATHARA TO THE PETITIONER ON 20/1/1995.

¶27

EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/9/2015 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK.

¶28

EXT. P6. TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPRESENTATION DATED 5/4/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT BANK WITH COPY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶34

O.P.(DRT) No.42 of 2016

¶35

Dated this the 8^th day of June, 2016

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

The petitioner has approached this Court inter alia seeking for the following reliefs :

¶38

(1) Call for the records leading to Exhibits P1 to P6.

¶39

(2) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order commanding the respondents to effect the one time settlement as per Exhibit P3 without any further delay. (3) Direct the respondents to take appropriate and timely decision pursuant to Exhibit P6 representation pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶40

(4) Direct the bank not to proceed with any sort of settlement by any other person or authority than the petitioner as being the Managing Director of the company.

¶41

Ext.P6 is an application submitted by the petitioner to the Bank seeking to settle the outstanding dues and not to receive the proposal given by Sri.N.T.Francis. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that a reply had been sent to Ext.P6 letter dated 05.04.2016, as per communication dated 12.04.2016 by which the Bank had observed that in so far as the proposal given by Sri.N.T.Francis was higher than the offer made by the petitioner, the same is being considered. It is further observed that, if the petitioner wishes to settle the dues with a higher offer than that of Sri.N.T.Francis, the Bank will consider the same for processing.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sri.N.T.Francis has nothing to do with the company as the right to

¶43

O.P.(DRT) No.42 of 2016

¶44

¶45

make offer and to settle the liability is that of the Managing Director of the company and in so far as the 2^nd petitioner is the Managing Director, the Bank could not have considered the claim of Sri.N.T.Francis.

¶46

It is also submitted by either side that one Sri.Mathew Vazhathada had already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal seeking for appropriate directions to the Bank to settle the liability. In the matter pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, it is for the Tribunal to take a final decision in the matter after hearing all the affected parties. It shall be open for the petitioner to take such contentions as permissible under law to defence the proceedings.

¶47

As far as the present writ petition is concerned, in so far as a reply had been given to Ext.P6 representation, I do not think that any further direction can be issued. Hence, interim order dated 07.06.2016 is vacated and the writ petition is dismissed.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶50

Thomsons Specialty Packagings and Exports (India) Ltd. v. State Bank of Travancore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomsons Specialty Packagings and Exports (India) Ltd. v. State Bank of Travancore

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

Dr.Joseph Issac Vs Bhanu Pratap Sharma

Josekutty Joseph Vs the State Bank of Travancore

M.I.George Vs Kannan Devan Hills Plantation Company Ltd.

Jagadeesh.P.K. Vs the Addl.District Magistrate

Ewv.Sr.Molly Augustine Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

K.v.Janardhan Pai Vs Reserve Bank of India