Dismissed

P.Gopalakrishnan v. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC23 Sept 2016OP (DRT)/87/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original petition, the petitioner challenged the Debt Recovery Tribunal's order and sought to restrain the Recovery Officer from selling mortgaged properties. He requested a negotiated settlement involving the Bank selling other borrowers' shares. The court rejected the request, holding the Recovery Officer cannot interfere in such matters or pass directions for minor mortgages. The petition

What the court decided

AI extract

P.Gopalakrishnan Vs Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. — 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

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/1ST ASWINA, 1938 OP (DRT).No. 87 of 2016 (Q) ---------------------------OA 547/2014 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

P.GOPALAKRISHNAN

¶7

AGED 54 YEARS, SON OF PADMANABHAN MENON, FLAT 204, UNITECH AKSHAYA APARTMENTS, 7TH CROSS, VELANHALLI ROAD, AKSHAYA NAGAR, DLF NEW TOWN, BANGALORE -560 068.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN

¶9

SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SMT.A.ANJANA SMT.K.S.SMITHA SMT.T.T.SHANIBA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK GURUVAYOOR BRANCH, GURUVAYOOR ROAD, GURUVAYOOR-680 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER.

¶12

2. ABHILASH PARAMESWARAN 4-CHAITHANIYA, GANDHI NAGAR, 1ST STREET, NEAR ODAT TEMPLE, GURUVAYOOR, KERALA.680101.

¶13

3. N.K. PARAMESWARAN 4-CHAITHANIYA, GANDHI NAGAR, 1ST STREET, NEAR ODAT TEMPLE, GURUVAYOOR, KERALA.680101.

¶14

4. MEERA PARAMESWARAN

¶15

4-CHAITHANIYA, GANDHI NAGAR, 1ST STREET, NEAR ODAT TEMPLE, GURUVAYOOR, KERALA.680101.

¶16

5. ANUPAMA BABU, W/O.MR.BABU A.V., 21318, GRAND HOLLOW LANE, KATY, TEXAS-77450, USA, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI.N.K.PARAMESHWARAN, 4-CHAITHANIYA, GANDHI NAGAR, 1ST STREET, NEAR ODAT TEMPLE, GURUVAYOOR, KERALA.680101.

¶17

OP (DRT).No. 87 of 2016 (Q)

¶18

6. THE RECOVERY OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, 1ST FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM -682 036.

¶19

R1 BY SRI.SUNIL SHANKAR, SC, R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.P. PRADEEP

¶20

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

OP (DRT).No. 87 of 2016 (Q)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE CREDIT SANCTION ADVICE DATED 12.01.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK.
P1(A):	TRUE COPY OF THE CREDIT SANCTION ADVICE DATED 01.03.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK.
P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARISED POWER OF ATTORNEY ATTESTED BY THE VICE COUNSEL, EMBASSY OF INDIA DATED 06.01.2009
P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK WHICH HAS BEEN NUMBERED AS OA 547/2014 BY THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.
P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 69/2014 WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE.
P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 IN EXHIBIT P4 SUIT PENDING BEFORE THE SUB COURT KOZHIKODE.
P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT PREPARED AT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER WHICH WAS INTENDED TO BE FILED BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL IN OA 547/2014
P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION DATED 10.07.2015 EVIDENCING DEATH OF THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER ON 04.07.2015
P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 19.08.2015 PASSED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM IN OA 547/2014.
P9:	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE EX-PARTE FINAL ORDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM.
P10:	TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED WILL NUMBER 141/13/III OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE WEST HILL EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
P11:	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 17.08.2016 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDE	NT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶30

------------------------------------- O.P.(DRT) No. 87 of 2016

¶31

Dated this the 23^rd day of September, 2016

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

This original petition is filed inter alia seeking the following reliefs:

¶34

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order restraining the 6^th respondent from initiating any further proceedings under Ext.P11 demand notice till such time a decision is taken on Exhibit P9 petition filed by the petitioner herein;

¶35

(ii) direct the 1^st respondent bank to consider the request of the petitioner to settle the liability in a negotiated settlement provided the 1^st respondent bank is willing to sell 3/6 shares belonging to the respondents 2, 4 and 5 to the petitioner and release the original title deeds of the property to the petitioner.”

¶36

The petitioner is now faced with an obligation to pay

¶37

the amount due to the respondent Bank as per orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A.No.547 of 2014. Presently, the matter is pending before the Recovery

¶38

O.P.(DRT) No. 87 of 2016

¶39

-2-

¶40

Officer attached to the Debts Recovery Tribunal and notice had been served on the petitioner to pay the amount due to the Bank, failing which, it is proposed to recover the amount by the sale of the mortgaged properties. The amount payable is ₹40,81,485.41 as on 9.11.2015 with future interest and cost.

¶41

According to the petitioner, they have 3/6^th shares in the mortgaged property and the other debtors/respondents 2, 4 and 5 have 3/6^th shares. Petitioner intends to settle the entire liability. But seeks equity insofar as the petitioner wants right in respect of the other half share available to the other borrowers/guarantors. I do not think that neither the Debts Recovery Tribunal or this Court or the Recovery Officer can proceed in accordance with the request made by the petitioner. If at all the petitioner is a guarantor, he has separate rights to recover the amount paid by him on behalf of the principal debtor. The said right is available under law, which has to be executed in accordance with the procedure prescribed. The Recovery Officer attached to the Debts Recovery Tribunal

¶42

O.P.(DRT) No. 87 of 2016

¶43

-3-

¶44

cannot interfere in such matters and pass orders.

¶45

Learned counsel submits that the other sharers

¶46

have expressed their intention that they have no objection in effecting sale of their interest in the property. Such intention by itself does not permit the Recovery Officer or the Bank to make any arrangements as contemplated by the petitioner.

¶47

In the result, I do not think that the proceedings initiated by the Recovery Officer requires any modification and no direction can be issued as prayed for. Original petition is therefore dismissed.

¶48

Sd/A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶49

Scl/23.09.2016

P.Gopalakrishnan v. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

P.Gopalakrishnan v. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Rajagopal Vs City Union Bank Limited

Jolly Lalu Varkey Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

M/S.Indot Color World Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

V.K.Mathew Vs Kse Board

M/S.Prince Alloys Private Limited & Anr. Vs K.S.E.Regulatory Commission and Others

State Bank of Travancore Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Oth