Dismissed

M.M.Sureshan v. the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank

Kerala HC28 Oct 2016OP (DRT)/91/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the proceedings of the Debts Recovery Tribunal seeking transfer of a Specific Application from DRT-II to DRT-I under Article 227. The court examined allegations against the Presiding Officer and a detailed report but found no infirmity in the proceedings to grant the relief.

What did the court decide?

Petition for transfer of S.A.No.241 of 2009 under Article 227 dismissed; matter disposed of.

M.M.Sureshan Vs the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank — 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 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/6TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 91 of 2016 ()

¶6

SA 241/2009 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

M.M.SURESHAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.KANNAN, MULLAKANDY HOUSE, AZHIKODE P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ZAKEER HUSSAIN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, NEELESWAR BRANCH, KASARAGODE DISTRICT.

¶12

2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001.

¶13

3. P.P.NOUSHAD, S/O.ABDUREHIMAN, P.P.HOUSE, MUKKILA PEDIKA, CHIRAKAL P.O., KANNUR-670011.

¶14

4. P.P.ZIANABA, W/O.ROUF, P.P.HOUSE, MUKKILA PEDIKA, CHIRAKAL P.O., KANNUR-670011.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY SRI.SUNIL SHANKAR, SC

¶16

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

mbr/

¶18

OP (DRT).No. 91 of 2016 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITION	ER(S)'	EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT	P1 :	TRUE COPY OF THE	LETTER DATED 29-08-2005.
EXHIBIT	P2 :	TRUE COPY OF THE	RECEIPT DATED 31-05-2006.
EXHIBIT	P3 :	TRUE COPY OF THE	NOTICE DATED 28-05-2008.
EXHIBIT	P4 :	TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLISHED IN THE DATED 17-08-2008.	SALE NOTICE DATED 17-08-2008 MATHRUBHUMI DAILY
EXHIBIT	P5 :	TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLISHED IN THE	SALE NOTICE DATED 17-08-2008 HINDU DAILY DATED 17-08-2008.
EXHIBIT	P6 :	TRUE COPY OF THE WPC NO.25935 OF 2	JUDGMENT DATED 16-09-2008 IN 008.
EXHIBIT	P7 :	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION NO.4600	JUDGMENT DATED 7-4-2009 IN WRIT OF 2009.
EXHIBIT	P8 :	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 07-05-2009.	SALE CERTIFICATE
EXHIBIT	P9 :	TRUE COPY OF THE DRT, ERNAKULAM.	S.A.NO.241 OF 2009 FILED BEFORE
EXHIBIT	P10:	TRUE COPY OF THE OF DRT IN S.A.NO.	INTERIM ORDER DATED 13-05-2009 241 OF 2009.
EXHIBIT	P11:	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND	WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2 IN S.A.NO.241 OF 2009.
EXHIBIT	P12:	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND	WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 4 IN S.A.NO. 241 OF 2009.
EXHIBIT	P13:	TRUE COPY OF THE S.A.NO. 241 OF 20	I.A.NO.566 OF 2016 IN 09.
EXHIBIT	P14:	TRUE COPY OF THE OF 2009.	I.A.NO.567/2016 IN S.A.NO.241
EXHIBIT	P15:	TRUE COPY OF THE S.A.NO.241 OF 200	I.A.NO.578 OF 2016 IN 9.
EXHIBIT	P16:	TRUE COPY OF THE S.A.NO. 241 OF 20	I.A.NO.586 OF 2016 IN 09.
RESPONDE	NT(S)'	EXHIBITS

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶25

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

¶26

OP(DRT) No. 91 of 2016

¶27

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

¶28

Dated this, the 28^th day of October, 2016

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

This Original Petition has been filed seeking the following

¶31

relief:-

¶32

“(i) invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India and to order that S.A.No.241 of 2009 on the file of DRT-II, Ernakulam may be transferred to DRT-I, Ernakulam.”

¶33

Certain allegations had been made against the Presiding Officer especially in paras 36 to 39. A report had been called for from the Debts Recovery Tribunal. A detailed report narrating the factual aspects involved in the matter has been placed on record.

¶34

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the report does not contain the correct factual aspects involved in the matter. I do not think that I can agree with the said submission. When a responsible officer has after verifying the entire records has clearly narrated the factual aspects based on the records available with the authority, there is no reason to disbelieve the said statement. I do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the

¶35

OP(DRT) No.91/16

¶36

proceedings that had been taken in the matter. However, I do not wish to comment on the other aspects which had been highlighted by the petitioner since the lis is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is mentioned that the matter has already been heard and is reserved for orders. It shall be open for the Debts Recovery Tribunal to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the procedure prescribed, as expeditiously as possible.

¶37

OP(DRT) is disposed of as above.

¶38

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶39

Rp28/10/2016

¶40

//True Copy//

¶41

P.S to Judge

M.M.Sureshan v. the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.M.Sureshan v. the Manager, Indian Overseas 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

Anusha M.K. Vs University of Calicut

Kamalamma Vs the District Collector

Shine Ceramics Vs State of Kerala

Smt. Laila Mathew Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S.Modern Electricals Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt)

M/S.Royal Enfield Vs the Intelligence Inspector