Dismissed

Mrs. Geena George v. Hdfc Bank Limited

Kerala HC16 Jan 2017OP (DRT)/128/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed writ appeals against bank recovery proceedings. Rejecting the petitioners request to sell only 14 cents of property, the court upheld the earlier undertaking to vacate the remaining premises by 31.12.2016 and confirmed the bank will proceed with sale of the entire property.

What did the court decide?

Impaniments dismissed; writ appeals against bank recovery proceedings dismissed; Bank proceeds with sale.

Mrs. Geena George Vs Hdfc Bank Limited — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/26TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 128 of 2016 (O)

¶6

O.A.NO.393/2013 OF DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, ERNAKULAM.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. MRS.GEENA GEORGE, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.C.V.GEORGE, PROPRITERIX, M/S.MARIAM RUBBERS, RUBBER DEALER, KADAYIRUPPU PO, KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM, NOW RESIDING AT CHARAKUNNATH HOUSE, MADAVOOR PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686 669.

¶9

2. MR.C.V.GEORGE, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, CHARAKUNNATH HOUSE, MADAVOOR PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686 669.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER

¶11

SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. HDFC BANK LIMITED, FIRST FLOOR, CHOICE TOWERS, MANORAMA JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶14

2. HDFC BANK LIMITED, FIRST FLOOR, CHOICE TOWERS, MANORAMA JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶15

3. SRI.PETER GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, VARIKALAYIL HOUSE, MAZHUVANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY SRI.T.RAJESH, SC

¶17

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

mbr/

¶19

OP (DRT).No. 128 of 2016 (O) -----------------------------

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXHIBIT P1	:	TRUE COPY OF THE PASSED BY THE DR	FINAL ORDER DATED 23-5-2016 T-1, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P2	:	TRUE COPY OF THE WA 2212/2016.	JUDGMENT DATED 14-11-2016 IN
EXHIBIT P3	:	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT.	PROPOSAL DATED 14-12-2016 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
EXHIBIT P4	:	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 15-12-2016.	COVERING LETTER
EXHIBIT P5	:	COPY OF THE REVIS 1ST RESPONDENT DA	ED OFFER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE TED 29.12.2016.
EXHIBIT P6	:	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 30.12.2016.	COVERING LETTER
RESPONDENT ----------	(S)' ----	EXHIBITS: ---------	NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶27

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

¶28

O.P (DRT)No.128 of 2016 - O

¶29

========================= Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2017

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioners are aggrieved with the recovery proceedings initiated against the property of the petitioners' by the respondent Bank, for satisfaction of defaulted amounts in a business loan of Rs.5 crores, availed by the petitioners as far back as on 07.08.2010. The loan account was declared Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 29.06.2013 and subsequently, even according to the petitioners, the Bank had consented to private sale of one of the properties mortgaged, which had resulted in the deposit of Rs.96,00,000/- to the account.

¶32

Subsequently, when default continued, the Bank again had proceeded against the properties, upon which, the petitioners agreed to surrender the properties, which was not complied with. The petitioners were before this Court with a

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C)No.OP(DRT)128/2016

¶35

writ petition, which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge, directing to vacate the premises, within a period of one month from 14.10.2016. The petitioners filed an appeal, in which Ext.P2 judgment was passed.

¶36

The Division Bench of this Court even at that stage noticed that there was sufficient leniency shown to the petitioners and the petitioners had been dragging the proceedings since 2013, without repaying the loans. However, considering only the fact that the petitioners' daughter's marriage was fixed, the Division Bench directed affidavits to be filed, undertaking the vacation of the property by 31.12.2016. Such affidavits were filed and on that basis, the Division Bench disposed of the appeal, granting time only up to 31.12.2016, which was also the undertaking made by the petitioners.

¶37

The petitioners have again approached this Court contending that there is a purchaser for the 14 cents of

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C)No.OP(DRT)128/2016

¶40

property, out of the remaining 44.50 cents mortgaged to the respondents. The learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks for consideration of two representations filed along with I.A No.84 of 2017.

¶41

The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the representation produced as Ext.P4 has already been rejected by order dated 22.12.2016. The learned Counsel also expresses their inability, insofar as any consideration of Exts.P5 and P6, for reason of the proposal put forward by the petitioners and the 3^rd respondent being impracticable. It is submitted that out of the 44.5 cents, if 14 cents as agreed to be purchased by the 3^rd respondent, is sold to him, the remaining 30 cents would be left without any access and hence, the security interest would be rendered ineffective.

¶42

In such circumstance, this Court is not inclined to

¶43

grant any direction to the respondent Bank to consider the

¶44

¶45

W.P.(C)No.OP(DRT)128/2016

¶46

representations at Exts.P5 and P6. It is also pertinent, as pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank that the petitioners are now trying to wriggle out of the specific undertaking made before the Division Bench to vacate the premises on 31.12.2016. It is also fairly submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that they would proceed with the sale proceedings and at any point, the petitioners could bring forth a purchaser to purchase the entire properties, upon which due consideration would be made, depending upon the price offered by such purchaser.

¶47

The writ petition hence would stand dismissed.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶50

SB/16/01/2017

¶51

// true copy //

¶52

P.A to Judge

Mrs. Geena George v. Hdfc Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Geena George v. Hdfc 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

Brahmachari Prakash Vs Reghunath.a.T

Hdfc Bank Limited Vs Linson P.S.

Razia Rahim Vs the Regional Manager

Jameskutty Vs the Authorized Officer Federal Bank Ltd.

Sajini M.J. Vs Can Fin Homes (P) Ltd.

M/S. Popular Printers Vs the Income Tax Officer(Tds)