Dismissed

George J.Thaliath v. State Bank of India

Kerala HC5 Jul 2016RP/513/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition against a DRT order, the Kerala High Court declined to extend the time for depositing Rs.50 lakhs. The court noted the account had been NPA since 2012 and reiterated that the review petition is improperly maintainable in view of earlier Apex Court observations.

What did the court decide?

Extension of time to deposit Rs.50 lakhs was denied and the review petition was dismissed.

George J.Thaliath Vs State Bank of India — 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

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2016/14TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 513 of 2016 (O)

¶6

----------------------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP (DRT).NO. 164/2015 DATED 23-05-2016)

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER :

¶8

GEORGE J.THALIATH, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.LATE JACOB THALIATH, C.C.NO.53/1415, PANDIT KARUPPAN ROAD, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM- 682 013.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :

¶11

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, S.H.COLLEGE BRANCH, THEVARA,

¶12

KOCHI-682 013, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.

¶13

2. THE DEBT RECEOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, (KERALA AND LAKSHADWEEP), 5TH FLOOR, K.S.H.B BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)(SENIOR ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

R.P.NO.513/2016

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: NIL

¶20

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEX 1	COPY OF THE SA 267 OF 2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXCLUDING THE ANNEXURES.
ANNEX 2	COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SA 640 OF 2013 FILED BY BROTHER OF THE PETITIONER, ABRAHAM J. THALIATH, EXCLUDING THE ANNEXURES
ANNEX 3	COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN WP(C).NO.10401/2014 DATED 22/04/2014.
ANNEX 4	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN WA 676 OF 2014 DATED 22/5/2014
ANNEX 5	COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN REVIEW PETITION 389 OF 2014 DATED 03/09/2014
ANNEX 6	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN WP(C).NO.10401/2014 DATED 11/1/2016
ANNEX 7	COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF 2 ACCOUNTS MS MADONNA EXPORTS FROM 1/3/2012 AND 1/5/2012 TO 31/5/2015 WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 5/6/2015
ANNEX 8	COPY OF THE STATEMENT PERTAINING TO THE ACCOUNT OF M/S. ANNIE & GEORGE ENTERPRISES FROM 01/2/2011 TO 31/5/2015 WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 5/6/2015
ANNEX 9	COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED IN OP DRT 164 OF 2015 DATED 13/01/2016
ANNEX 10	COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED IN OP DRT 164 OF 2015 DATED 15/02/2016
ANNEX 11	COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED IN OP DRT 164 OF 2015 DATED 16/03/2016.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶26

R.P.No.513 of 2016 in O.P.(DRT) No. 164 of 2015

¶27

-------------------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2016

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This review petition has been filed seeking to review the judgment dated 23.5.2016 in O.P.(DRT) No.164 of 2015. The above said original petition was filed seeking to set aside Ext.P12 initiated by the Bank until the completion of proceedings pending before this Court in O.P.(DRT) No.125 of 2015. Ext.P12 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner, pursuant to an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, directing the Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the secured asset. Petitioner contended that, taking possession of the museum property should be kept in abeyance. This Court, by the judgment which is sought to be reviewed, did not entertain the challenge. However, time for payment of Rs.50 lakh as directed, was extended by eight

¶30

R.P.513/2016 in O.P.(DRT) 164/2015

¶31

-2-

¶32

weeks from 17.5.2016 as directed by the Apex Court and the Advocate Commissioner was directed to keep in abeyance taking possession of the premises for a period of eight weeks. Direction was also issued to the Debt Recovery Tribunal to dispose Securitisation Application within a period of two months.

¶33

Though this review petition has been filed taking several contentions, learned counsel for the review petitioner at the time of hearing submits that the petitioner only seeks for some time to deposit the above Rs.50 lakhs.

¶34

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent inter alia stating that the museum property was taken possession by the Advocate Commissioner and the same had been returned to the petitioner, on depositing Rs.50 lakhs. It is submitted that thereafter when order was passed on 15.2.2016 directing the petitioner to pay a further amount of Rs.50 lakhs in two accounts on or before 17.5.2016, the petitioner did not comply with. The matter was taken in

¶35

R.P.513/2016 in O.P.(DRT) 164/2015

¶36

-3-

¶37

appeal and even before the Apex Court. The Apex Court granted only eight weeks' time to pay the said amount. In regard to the contentions urged by the petitioner, Apex Court only observed that it shall be open for the review petitioner to seek necessary modification of the interim order. This Court passed judgment without interfering with the directions and it is not open for the petitioner to seek review of the judgment.

¶38

It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Bank that the total outstanding amount will come to Rs.2.40 Crores and if the Bank is not permitted to take possession of the secured assets, there will be substantial delay in recovering the amount, which is substantially huge.

¶39

It is evident from the factual matrix involved in the matter that the account had become NPA as early as in 2012 and several steps had been made by the petitioner and certain others by approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal and even this Court for delaying the proceedings. Now that four years had elapsed and still no attempt had been made to settle the

¶40

R.P.513/2016 in O.P.(DRT) 164/2015

¶41

-4-

¶42

liability. Certain payments had been made by the petitioner only by virtue of interim directions issued by this Court and now that a further interim direction to pay Rs.50 lakhs, has also not been complied with. There is no reason why this Court should again extend the time.

¶43

In the result, I find no reason to grant extension of time as far as the review petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed.

¶44

Sd/A.M. SHAFFIQUE

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Scl/05.07.2016

George J.Thaliath v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George J.Thaliath v. State Bank of India

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

Kuriakose Vs Union Bank of India

Sreekumar Vs C.M.George

Annamma Joseph Vs the Authorized

Anilkumar Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Mathew Varghese Vs the Chief Manager (Authorized Officer)

Rabia Vs Joint Registrar