Disposed

Renjith v. Federal Bank

Kerala HC20 Sept 2016OP (DRT)/83/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This debt recovery tribunal order addresses a petition challenging a time-to-pay modification order. The court directed that the petitioner's belated payment of one lac, made under an interim stay order, be considered as due payment towards the revised instalments. The matter was remanded to the original debtor recovery tribunal to consider the pending securitisation application and pass appropria

What did the court decide?

The payment of one lac made under the interim order shall be treated as due payment towards the instalments under the order dated 25/5/2016; the matter is remanded to the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Renjith Vs Federal Bank — 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

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/29TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 83 of 2016 (O)

¶6

---------------------------SA.NO. 280/2016 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER :

¶8

RENJITH, S/O. VIJAYAN,AMBATTU HOUSE, BISON VALLEY, UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI -685 565

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH

¶10

RESPONDENT :

¶11

FEDERAL BANK, KUNCHITHANNI BRANCH, KUNCHITHANNI, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER, IDUKKI -685 565

¶12

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

¶13

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

OP (DRT).No. 83 of 2016 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SECURITIZATION APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

¶19

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER

¶20

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL DATED 25/5/2016

¶21

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF RS. 4,00,000/- ON 15/6/2016

¶22

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF RS. 4,00,000/- ON 15/7/2016

¶23

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMITTANCE SHOWING THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 3,00,000/- ON 16/8/2016

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶30

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

¶31

OP (DRT) No. 83 of 2016

¶32

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

¶33

Dated this, the 20^th day of September, 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P3, an order dated 25/5/2016 in SA No.280/2016 by which petitioner was granted time to pay 4 lakhs on or before 15/6/2016 and like sum on or before 15<sup>th</sup> of July and August, 2016. It was also observed that if the amounts are not paid, Bank will be entitled to take further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. This OP was filed inter alia contending that petitioner remitted 4 lakhs on 15/6/2016 and 4 lakhs on 15/7/2016. However, only 3 lakhs could be remitted by 16/8/2016. Petitioner sought for some time to remit balance `1 lakh.

¶36

An interim order was passed by this Court on 9/9/2016

¶37

directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner till 26/9/2016 and in the meantime, petitioner was directed to remit `1 lakh.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that the petitioner had deposited `1 lakh as directed.

¶39

OP(DRT) No.83/2016

¶40

-:2:-

¶41

Having regard to the fact that petitioner had substantially complied with the order dated 25/5/2016, though belatedly, as far as the last instalment is concerned, I am of the view that since the Securitisation Application is still pending, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall consider further issues projected in the Securitisation Application. The payment made as directed by this Court on 9/9/2016 shall be considered as due payment as per interim order dated 25/5/2016.

¶42

Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that Bank is proceeding to seek directions to modify the order dated 25/5/2016 as substantial amount is due to the Bank in different loan accounts taken by the petitioner.

¶43

Having regard to the aforesaid submission, I do not think that any further directions are required to be passed. However, it is observed that the payment of `1 lakh as per interim order dated 9/9/2016 shall be treated as due payment of the instalments as per Ext.P3 order. The Debts Recovery Tribunal shall consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that the disposal of this original petition and the modification of Ext.P3 order shall not

¶44

OP(DRT) No.83/2016

¶45

-:3:-

¶46

preclude the respondent Bank from approaching the Tribunal for

¶47

further directions.

¶48

Original petition is closed with the above observation.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶51

Rp20/09/2016

¶52

//True Copy//

¶53

P.S to Judge

Renjith v. Federal Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renjith v. Federal Bank

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

Dr. Jacob Mani Vs State Bank of India

M/S Malayalam Industries Ltd. Vs Corporation Bank

Ashik Pradeep v Vs the University Grants Commission Ugc

Laxmi Vasanth Vs the State of Kerala

Mr. Sony P.Joseph Vs the Authorised Officer

Nandhitha Vs Medical Council of India