Dismissed

Remani Thomas v. the Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda

Kerala HC17 Oct 2016OP (DRT)/97/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition for directions to the DR Tribunal or to quash a notice, claiming the secured asset was agricultural and that the tribunal had not acted on their application for an Advocate Commissioner. The court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking directions to the Debt Recovery Tribunal and quashing of a notice was dismissed.

Remani Thomas Vs the Authorised Officer, Bank of… — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/25TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 97 of 2016 (O)

¶6

SA.NO. 27/2016 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANTS:

¶8

1. REMANI THOMAS, W/O. M.D.THOMAS, MULLOORAKAM HOUSE, NADACKAL P.O., ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686 121

¶9

2. ARJUN THOMAS,

¶10

S/O. M.D.THOMAS, MULLOORAKAM HOUSE, NADACKAL P.O., ERATTUPETTA,

¶11

KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686 121

¶12

3. M.D.THOMAS, S/O. DEVASIA, MULLOORAKAM HOUSE, NADACKAL P.O., ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686 121

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.K.K.JOHN SRI.ASISH K.JOHN

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, BANK OF BARODA, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, MADEENA TOWER, BAKER JUNCTION, CMS COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM -686 001

¶16

2. BANK OF BARODA, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, MADEENA TOWER, BAKER JUNCTION, CMS COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM -686 001

¶17

3. MR. CYRIL THOMAS, ADVOCATE COURT VIEW COMPLEX, NORTHERN SIDE OF POLICE, PARADE GROUND,

¶18

COLLECTORATE PO., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 002

¶19

R1 & R2 BY SRI.JOMY GEORGE

¶20

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

sts

¶22

OP (DRT).No. 97 of 2016 (O)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.17227 OF 2016 DATED 17.05.2016

¶26

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE DIVISION BENCH IN WA NO.980/2016 DATED 06/06/2016

¶27

EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF S.A. NO.27/2016 OF THE DRT -2. ERNAKULAM DATED 23/06/2016

¶28

EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN S.A.NO.27/2016 DATED 12/07/2016

¶29

EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF I.A.NO.170/2016 FOR STAY DATED 23.06.2016

¶30

EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN I.A.NO.170/2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS DATED 12.07.2016

¶31

EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF 169/2916 FOR ISSUED OF A COMMISSION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 23.06.2016

¶32

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE THIRD PETITIOENR BEFORE THE DRT ON 26.08.2016

¶33

EXHIBIT P9: COPY OF I.A.NO.630/2016 FOR REVIEW FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 23.09.2016

¶34

EXHIBIT P10: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONERS, DATED 06.10.2016

¶35

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶41

O.P.(DRT) No.97 of 2016

¶42

Dated this the 17^th day of October, 2016

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

Petitioner had approached this Court seeking the

¶45

following directions:

¶46

“(a) Call for records relating to Exhibit P3 Securitisation Application and the Interlocutory Applications Exhibit P6 and Exhibit P7, and direct the Debt Recovery Tribunal -2, Ernakulam to pass urgent orders in Exhibit P6 and Exhibit P7 Interlocutory Applications in the interest of justice.

¶47

(b) Call for records relating to Exhibit P10 Notice and quash the same.”

¶48

The main contention urged by the petitioner is that

¶49

the secured asset is an agricultural property and the matter is pending consideration before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in S.A.No.27 of 2016. It is submitted that the petitioner had also filed an application for deputing an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and file a report. However, no action has been taken in the matter, but orders had been passed by the

¶50

O.P.(DRT) No.97 of 2016

¶51

-2-

¶52

Debts Recovery Tribunal, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.2 Crores by 30.9.2016 and to pay the balance on or before 31.12.2016. It is submitted that the petitioner could not remit the said amount and the liability can be settled only after sale of another item of property, for which there is some delay.

¶53

Be that as it may, when the matter is pending consideration before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, I do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the same. That apart, the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the stay petition filed by the petitioner, had granted stay on certain conditions, which apparently had not been complied with. The Chief Judicial Magistrate had already issued directions to take possession of the secured asset. Even if possession is taken, ultimately if it is found that the property is agricultural, the Debts Recovery Tribunal is entitled to direct the secured creditor to return the property to the borrower.

¶54

When such procedural formalities are very much available, I do not think that the petitioner can resist the order

¶55

O.P.(DRT) No.97 of 2016

¶56

-3-

¶57

passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take possession of the secured asset. Writ petition is therefore dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M. SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Scl/17.10.2016

Remani Thomas v. the Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Remani Thomas v. the Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hamsa Vs the Trichur Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

Engineers Training Centre Vs Univeristy Grants Commission

Swarnan. T Vs South Indian Bank

Sreedharan Nair Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Gala Icecreams Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

Manohar.M Vs State of Kerala