Disposed

M/S. Vijaya Hospitality and Resorts Ltd. v. Federal Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC14 Jun 2016OP (DRT)/49/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of original petitions challenging SARFAESI proceedings initiated by Federal Bank Ltd. Despite non-compliance with an interim order to remit ₹1.5 crores, the Court granted an extension to comply with Debts Recovery Tribunal orders and kept coercive steps in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Time for payment covered by Ext.P4 orders extended until 14/8/2016; orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate kept in abeyance until that date.

M/S. Vijaya Hospitality and Resorts Ltd. Vs Federal Bank… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/24TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 49 of 2016 (O)

¶6

SA NO. 308/2015 OF DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM CMP NO. 7043/2015 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S) :

¶8

1. M/S. VIJAYA HOSPITALITY AND RESORTS LTD

¶9

DOOR NO. 37/991, FIRST FLOOR, EMMY SQUARE, S.A.ROAD, ERNAKULAM,

¶10

KOCHI - 682020, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT.SHALINI VIJAYAN.

¶11

2. MRS.SHALINI VIJAYAN, 37/595, DEVAKI SADAN, MUTTAHIL LANE, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI - 682 020.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.S.EASWARAN

¶13

SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE

¶14

SRI.P.SREEKUMAR (THOTTAKKATTUKARA)

¶15

RESPONDENT :

¶16

FEDERAL BANK LTD VYTTILA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER SMT.NISHA K.DAS, WIFE OF BINU JAYAKUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS, CHIEF MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., ERNAKULAM, VYTTILA BRANCH- 682 019.

¶17

BY ADVS. SRI.A.ANTONY SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY

¶18

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-06-2016, ALONG WITH OP(DRT). 50/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

...2/-

¶21

OP (DRT).No. 49 of 2016 (O)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶24

EXT. P1 COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.8.2015 IN S.A.NO.308 OF 2015 ISSUED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶25

EXT. P2 COPY OF PETITION DATED 18TH DECEMBER, 2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THODUPZHA UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE SARFAESI ACT, 2002 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES)

¶26

EXT. P3 COPY OF I.A.NO.216 OF 2016 IN S.A.NO.308 OF 2015 OF THE DRT, ERNAKULAM (WITHOUR ANNEXURES)

¶27

EXT. P4 COPY OF ORDER DATED 23.2.2015 ISSUED BY THE DRT IN S.A.NO.308 OF 2015.

¶28

EXT. P5 RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER DATED 18.3.2016 OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL IN S.A.NO.308 OF 2015.

¶29

EXT. P6 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 25.1.2016 FILED BY THE BANK BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA.

¶30

EXT. P7 COPY OF PETITION 5.3.2016 FILED BY THE BANK BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA.

¶31

EXT. P8 COPY OF CAVEAT PETITION DATED 15.4.2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.

¶32

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶37

============= O.P.(DRT) Nos. 49 & 50 of 2016

¶38

====================

¶39

Dated this, the 14^th day of June, 2016

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

Ext.P4 in these original petitions are under challenge. Petitioners have approached this Court challenging SARFAESI proceedings initiated against the petitioners. It seems that the petitioners are group concerns, one is a Private Limited Company and the other one is a Public Company. When proceedings were taken by the Bank under Section 14 of the Act and the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take possession, the same came to be challenged by filing separate Securitisation Applications before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Debts Recovery Tribunal by two separate orders had granted stay on condition of the petitioners remitting 4 crores in one case and 2 crores in the other case on or before 4/3/2016. It is challenging the said orders that these original petitions have been filed.

¶42

When the original petitions came up for admission, this Court by an interim order dated 6/5/2016 kept in abeyance

¶43

OP(DRT) Nos.49 & 50/2016

¶44

-:2:-

¶45

further coercive steps on condition of the petitioners remitting `1.5 crores to the respondent Bank.

¶46

Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that his information reveals that `85 lakhs had been transferred to the respondent Bank, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank denies the aforesaid fact. The fact remains that the interim direction issued by this Court has not been complied with.

¶47

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners however would submit that the petitioners are trying to salvage the situation. There are some issues which are required to be taken up and if time is granted, the petitioners will be in a position to regularise the loan account and effect repayment. Presently, the issue is with reference to Ext.P4 order in both these cases by which the Debts Recovery Tribunal had granted an interim order on condition of payment of `6 crores (in two cases). So far, the same has not been complied with.

¶48

However, taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that one more opportunity could be granted to the petitioners to

¶49

OP(DRT) Nos.49 & 50/2016

¶50

-:3:-

¶51

comply with the directions in terms of Ext.P4 orders passed by the DRT.

¶52

Accordingly, these original petitions are disposed of as under;

¶53

(i) Time for payment covered by Ext.P4 orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall be extended upto 14/8/2016.

¶54

(ii) If payment is made as above, it shall be open for the DRT to consider the matter in accordance with law.

¶55

(iii) Until 14/8/2016, orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall be kept in abeyance.

¶56

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶57

Rp14/06/2016

¶58

//True Copy//

¶59

P.S to Judge

M/S. Vijaya Hospitality and Resorts Ltd. v. Federal Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Vijaya Hospitality and Resorts Ltd. v. Federal 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

Mothilal Vs Jacob

Abraham.v.a. Vs the Tahsildar,Kanayannoor Taluk & Ors.

K. Lakshmanan Vs District Collector

Indian Overseas Bank Vs M/S Global Agritech

Abdul Sathar.a Vs Branch Manager, Ksfe

Muhammed Ashraf.C.K Vs the Manjeri Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.