Dismissed

A.a.Joseph v. Sri.Anil K.Mathew

Kerala HC9 Aug 2016OP (DRT)/52/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an original petition seeking stay of proceedings and quashing of the Debts Recovery Tribunal's order that set aside a bank's sale. The Court held that since the petitioner had already preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, this Court should not interfere with the Tribunal's orders at this stage.

What did the court decide?

The original petition seeking stay of proceedings and quashing of the Tribunal's order dated 14.03.2016 is dismissed.

A.a.Joseph Vs Sri.Anil K.Mathew — 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 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/18TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 52 of 2016 (O)

¶6

SA.NO. 3/2005 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

A.A.JOSEPH, S/O LATE A.L.ABRAHAM, ARAKKATHARA HOUSE, CHEMBUMKKU, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 030.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.BIJU JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. SRI.ANIL K.MATHEW, S/O.LATE MATHEW, KANJIRAPPADATHU KILUTHATTIL, KANGARAPADY, KOCHI-21, KERALA-682 021.

¶12

2. THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED, HARBOUR VIEW RESIDENCY,OPPOSITE SHIPYARD,M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 015,KERALA.

¶13

REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶14

3. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED, HARBOUR VIEW RESIDENCY,OPPOSITE SHIPYARD,M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 015,KERALA.

¶15

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.C.ELDHO SRI.JIJO THOMAS SRI.MALLENATHAN.M.

¶16

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

OP (DRT).No. 52 of 2016 (O)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 8.1.2016 IN S.A.NO.3 OF 2005 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM

¶22

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM WITHOUT ANNEXURES FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI

¶23

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION NO.I.A.NO.571/2016 IN SA.3/2005 AND AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM

¶24

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-03-2016 IN I.A.571 OF 2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM.

¶25

P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶32

O.P.(DRT).No.52 of 2016

¶33

Dated this, the 9^th day of August, 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

This original petition is filed seeking to stay the further proceedings in S.A.No.3 of 2005 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam and also seeking to quash the order dated 14.03.2016 in I.A.No.571 of 2016 in S.A.No.3 of 2005.

¶36

By order dated 14.03.2016 in I.A.No.571 of 2016 in S.A.No.3 of 2005, the Debts Recovery Tribunal had set aside the sale conducted by the respondent Bank in favour of the petitioner. It is inter alia observed that there is non compliance of the statutory notice to the borrower and that the Bank had not complied with the other requirements as well, especially getting the value of the property through an approved valuer. Accordingly, the Tribunal observed that the sale held on 17.09.2004 is per se illegal and the sale certificate executed on 18.10.2004 which was registered on 02.12.2004 in favour of the petitioner is null and void for non compliance with the mandatory legal requirements of Rule 8(5) and Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

¶37

As far as the petitioner is concerned, who is the auction purchaser, there was a direction to refund the sale amount of ₹6,50,001/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment. I.A.No.571 of 2016 was filed by the

¶38

O.P.(DRT).No.52 of 2016

¶39

¶40

petitioner for staying the operation of order dated 08.01.2016, which was dismissed by the Tribunal as per order dated 14.03.2016.

¶41

According to the petitioner, he had preferred an appeal against the order dated 08.01.2016 in S.A.No.3 of 2005 before the Appellate Tribunal at Chennai, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. The petitioner seeks for stay of operation of the order in S.A.No.3 of 2005 until a final decision is taken by the appellate Tribunal.

¶42

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner had already availed of the appellate remedy, I don't think that this Court should interfere in the matter at this stage of proceedings. The Tribunal has already set aside the sale and if the appellate authority modifies the said order in the appeal filed by the petitioner, definitely, the petitioner will be entitled to get appropriate reliefs. That apart, the Chennai Bench is functioning though the officer is coming from Allahabad.

¶43

Under such circumstances, I don't think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the present facts of the case.

¶44

This O.P(DRT) is, therefore, dismissed.

¶45

Sd/A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶46

A.a.Joseph v. Sri.Anil K.Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.a.Joseph v. Sri.Anil K.Mathew

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

Shyju Antony Vs the District Collector

Suma S Vs the Authorized Officer

Rahila Beevi Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Viswanathan K.P Vs Federal Bank Ltd.

Derbin K. Davis Vs the Special Tahasildar (Revenue Recovery)

Ibrahimkutty.v.v. Vs the Manager, Kerala Gramin Bank