Disposed

Rojer P. Mathew v. the Authorised Officer, South Indian Bank Limited

Kerala HC22 Feb 2016WP(C)/2652/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner approached the Court aggrieved by steps under the SARFAESI Act. Counsel submitted that a related application before the DRT was dismissed as infructuous. The Court closed the writ petition without prejudice to petitioner's right to pursue remedies against the DRT order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to pursue remedies against the order passed by the DRT.

Rojer P. Mathew Vs the Authorised Officer, South Indian… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/3RD PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 2652 of 2016 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

ROGER P. MATHEW, AGED 54 YEARS S/O P.T. MATHAI, PURAPPADATHIL HOUSE, G 203 PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682 036.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN

¶9

SRI.MANU GOVIND SRI.S.SABARINADH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED SIB BUILDING, INFOPARK ROAD RAJAGIRI VILLEY P.O., KAKKANAD KOCHI-682 039

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER

¶13

2. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER, XXXIX/2018 & 2019 M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 016.

¶14

3. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL KERALA & LAKSHWADEEP, ERNAKULAM, FLOOR NO. 5, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING PANAPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682 036.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.DILIP, SC R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. LILLY K.T.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

...2/-

¶19

WP(C).No. 2652 of 2016 (F)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXT.P1: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SERIES OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDNENT BANK INDICATING THE ABOVE MISMANAGEMENTS & ILLEGALITIES ON VARIOUS DATES.

¶23

EXT.P2: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO. 141/14 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶24

EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER -CUM-AUCTION SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER SCHEDULING SALE OF HIS PROPERTY ON 14/1/16 DT. 27/11/15.

¶25

EXT.P4: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS NO.176/2016 IN SA 141/14 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶31

¶32

W.P.(C) No.2652 of 2016

¶33

- - - - Dated this the 22^nd day of February 2016

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioner had approached this Court aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondent bank, under the SARFAESI Act. The writ petition was filed at a time, when Ext.P4 application preferred by the petitioner was pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). It is now submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the said application preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed as infructuous, by the Tribunal. Taking note of the said submission, and without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue his remedies against the order passed by the DRT in Ext.P4 application, the present writ petition is closed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶38

sm/

Rojer P. Mathew v. the Authorised Officer, South Indian Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rojer P. Mathew v. the Authorised Officer, South Indian Bank Limited

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

Vishnu Priya Vs the Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank,Mynagappally

Lenid Foot Care Private Limited Rep. by Its Managing Director Vs Bank of Baroda, Rep by Its Chief Manager

Rajan Mathew Vs the Intelligence Inspector

M/S. Kasmisons Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax Division

Madhuri Vs Authorized Officer

Kamalasanan Pillai Vs the Authorized Officer