The High Court dismissed a review petition challenging the order granting time to repay a bank loan and questioning the due amount. The court held that challenges to proceedings under the SARFAESI Act must be made before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
The review petition is dismissed. No interference with the judgment granting time.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/7TH BHADRA, 1938
RP.No. 629 of 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO. 21796 OF 2016, DATED 04.07.2016
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS :
1. SMT. DAKSHAYANI, "MADHAVAM", EDAKKAD P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 005.
2. DIVAKARAN NAIR V.,
3. DINESH KUMAR V.,
4. SAJITH KUMAR V.,
BY ADVS. SRI.T.S.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI
SRI.T.R.RAJEEV
SRI.T.P.RAJENDRAN NAIR
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :
1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMEC, KALLAI HEIGHTS, KALLAI, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 003.
2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMECCC, KALLAI HEIGHTS, KALLAI, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 003.
3. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, NRI BRANCH, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 001.
BY ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
Review Petition No.629 of 2016 in W.P.C.No.21796 of 2016
Dated this the 29th day of August 2016
O R D E R
This review petition has been filed inter alia seeking for time to repay the amount. In the review petition, petitioner also challenges the amount due.
the petitioner to interfere with the judgment in review.
This review petition is dismissed.
(sd/-)
(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)
jsr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the court can interfere with the judgment in review where a challenge to the amount exists.
Whether the remedy for challenge to proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Act lies before the Tribunal under Section 17.
Whether the review petition drawing time to repay and challenging the due amount is maintainable in this court.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Dakshayani
Divakaran Nair V.
Dinesh Kumar V.
Sajith Kumar V.
The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India
The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India
A. M. Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
