Disposed

Rabia v. Joint Registrar

Kerala HC5 Jul 2016OP (DRT)/64/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought a stay on the Debt Recovery Tribunal's proceedings pending disposal of an arbitration claim regarding an Ashwas Scheme dispute, arguing that non-disposal of the arbitration would deprive her of relief in the securitisation application.

What did the court decide?

The 1st respondent to finalise proceedings in Arbitration O.P.No.136/2015 within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Rabia Vs Joint Registrar — 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 5TH DAY OF JULY 2016/14TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 64 of 2016 (O)

¶6

SA 565/2011 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

RABIA, W/O.LATE MUHAMMADALI, RESIDING AT KHADEEJA MANZIL, VELIYAMCODE.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL SMT.P.USHAKUMARI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. JOINT REGISTRAR, REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL), MALAPPURAM.

¶12

2. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P & D),(AUTHORIZED OFFICER), N.V.DEVADASAN, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MALAPPURAM.

¶13

3. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN.

¶14

R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY.K.T R2 BY SRI.E.S.M.KABEER, SC

¶15

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

mbr/

¶17

OP (DRT).No. 64 of 2016 (O)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP(C)NO.10724/2015 DATED 1.4.2015.

¶21

EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ARBITRATION OP.NO.136/2015 DATED 21.5.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, MALAPPURAM.

¶22

EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14.6.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 30.6.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** O.P.(DRT).No.64 of 2016

¶29

Dated this the 5^th day of July 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶32

“i) Direct the 1^st respondent authority to adjudicate the Arbitration OP No.136/15 (Ext.P2) as expeditiously as possible within a time limit which may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶33

ii) Direct the 3^rd respondent Tribunal not to proceed with the final adjudication of the SA 565/11 till the final disposal of the arbitration O.P.No.136/15.

¶34

Iii) Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may found deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and

¶35

iv) Award cost of this petition.”

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

¶37

There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner had approached the Joint Registrar staking a claim with reference

¶38

O.P.(DRT) No.64/2016

¶39

¶40

to the settlement of accounts with the bank and seeking the benefit under the Ashwas Scheme. Parallely, securitisation application 565/2011 is also pending by which the petitioner had challenged the measure taken by the Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. It is stated that, on account of non-disposal of the Arbitration O.P, petitioner may not get any relief in the securitisation application.

¶41

As far as securitisation application is concerned, it is pending since 2011. Nothing prevents the Tribunal from deciding the said matter. The pendency of the arbitration case shall not preclude the Tribunal in deciding the securitisation application, in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Therefore, I do not think it necessary to stay further proceedings pending before the Tribunal.

¶42

As far as the arbitration case is concerned, it is necessary that it has to be settled, as early as possible. Hence the only relief that can be granted in the present lis is to direct the 1^st respondent to dispose of the matter, at the earliest.

¶43

O.P.(DRT) No.64/2016

¶44

¶45

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as under:

¶46

That the 1^st respondent shall finalise the proceedings in Arbitration O.P.No.136/2015 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

(sd/-)

¶48

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶49

jsr

Rabia v. Joint Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabia v. Joint Registrar

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

Kuriakose Vs Union Bank of India

Sreekumar Vs C.M.George

Annamma Joseph Vs the Authorized

Anilkumar Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Mathew Varghese Vs the Chief Manager (Authorized Officer)

George J.Thaliath Vs State Bank of India