The High Court held that since the sale under the RDBFI Act was conducted according to the statute and an alternate remedy (Rule 60/61 Income Tax Act) exists, interference by the Court is unjustified without the petitioner approaching the competent authority first.
Writ petition dismissed; petitioner permitted to approach the competent authority if dissatisfied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/18TH BHADRA, 1938
OP (DRT).No. 82 of 2016 (O)
DRC.NO. 3536/2016 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER :
K.A. SAJU, S/O.T.K.ABDUL KHADER, AGED 41 YEARS, VI/802 A, KADAVIL HOUSE, THRIKKAKKARA.P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 021
BY SRI.G.SHRIKUMAR,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.ANIL VINCENT
RESPONDENT(S):
1. SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, PIONEER TOWER, 1ST FLOOR, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.
2. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1, ERNAKULAM-682 036.
BY SRI.R.S. KALKURA, SC, SYNDICATE BANK
THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
OP(DRT).NO.82/2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.3536.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
O.P (DRT) No. 82 of 2016
Dated this the 09th day of September, 2016
J U D G M E N T
This Original Petition is filed challenging the sale conducted by the recovery officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal invoking power under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. It is submitted that the sale held is not in accordance with law and the property has been grossly undervalued. That apart, the petitioner intended to regularize the loan account.
Once the sale has been conducted in terms of the provisions of the Statute, I do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the same. Provisions like Rule 60 and 61 of the Schedule II of Income Tax Act, which is applicable for setting aside the sale, are very much available for the petitioner while approaching the Recovery Officer itself. Under such circumstances, I do not think that when an alternate remedy is available this Court will be justified in interfering with the sale conducted by the Recovery Officer. Reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the competent Authority, this writ petition is dismissed.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE
DMR/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with a sale conducted by the Recovery Officer under the RDBFI Act when an alternate remedy is available.
Whether Rule 60 and 61 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act constitute an adequate alternate remedy for setting aside the sale.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K.A. Saju
Syndicate Bank
Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-1, Ernakulam
A.M. Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
