Petitioner challenged the DRT's order rejecting maintainability objections. The High Court, noting the petitioner's multiple unnecessary petitions and the availability of an appeal to the DRAT, declined to intervene and closed the writ petition.
Writ petition closed; petitioner directed to approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/23RD POUSHA, 1938
OP (DRT).No. 3 of 2017 (O)
SA.NO.306/2014 OF DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.
PETITIONER:
BRAHMACHARI PRAKASH, 5/49, MATHA AMRITHANANDAMAYI MATH, AMRITHAPURI, ALAPAD VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. REGHUNATH.A.T, S/O.THANKAPPAN NAIR, MANAGING PARTNER, SANDEEPANI SMART VILLAGE, IYKKARA HOUSE, NADUVATTOM KARA, MANJAPPRA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK - 683101.
2. M/S.SANDEEPANI SMART VILLAGE, BUILDING NO.V/334, MANJAPRA, NEAR AKKUNNU TEMPLE, ANGAMALI - 683 531, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER REGHUNATH A.T
3. SYNDICATE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, (RECOVERY CELL), SHANMUGHAM ROAD, KOCHI - 682 031.
4. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER SYNDICATE BANK, ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH, VAKKACHAN TOWERS, CHITTOOR ROAD, VADUTHALA, KOCHI - 682 023.
5. THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR - 682 011.
R3 & R4 BY SRI.R.S. KALKURA, SC R5 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
OP (DRT).No. 3 of 2017 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
| EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4/10/2011 IN WPC NO.18886/2011. |
|---|
| EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN W.A NO.1803/2011. |
| EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/2/2014 IN W.A NO.1803/2011. |
| EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN R.P NO.152/2014 DATED 25/2/2014. |
| EXT.P5 : COPY OF S.A NO.306/2014. |
| EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/7/2015 IN OP(DRT) NO.94/2015. |
| EXT.P7 : COPY OF I.A NO.2250/2015 IN SA NO.306/2014. |
| EXT.P8 : COPY OF I.A NO.3030 OF 2014 IN S.A NO.306/2014. |
| EXT.P9 : EXTRACT OF THE A DIARY PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL FROM 3/9/2015 TO 12/1/2016. |
| EXT.P10 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP(DRT) NO.111/2015. |
| EXT.P11 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/8/2016 IN R.P NO.694/2016 IN OP.(DRT) NO.111/2015. |
| EXT.P12 : COPY OF I.A NO.1363/2016 IN O.P.(DRT) NO.94/2015. |
| EXT.P13 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A NO.1363/2016 IN OP.(DRT) NO.94/2015. |
| EXT.P14 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/12/2016 IN I.A NO.2250/2015 IN SA. NO.306/2014. |
| RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ----------------------- |
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------O.P.(DRT) No. 3 of 2017 (O)
-----------------------------------------Dated: 13th January, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved with the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at Ext.P14. The petitioner is the purchaser of the property from the respondent Bank.
O.P.(DRT) No. 3/2017
-2-
get the value of the property reduced. A Writ Appeal was filed, which was dismissed and a review filed also stood rejected.
O.P.(DRT) No. 3/2017
-3-
before another forum, is the argument.
O.P.(DRT) No. 3/2017
-4-
being taken up, again the petitioner approached this Court with another OP(DRT) No.111/2015, in which there was a direction to consider the SA itself by Ext.P9 dated 12.10.2015 . A time extension was sought for by the DRT, when this Court had directed a mediation to be attempted by order dated 06.08.2016. A review was filed later asserting that no mediation was possible and further time was allowed as per Ext.P11 order dated 12.08.2016 to dispose of the SA itself.
O.P.(DRT) No. 3/2017
-5-
Suffice it to notice that on Ext.P13 clarification being issued, the DRT considered the preliminary issue and passed Ext.P14 dated 27.12.2016, rejecting the objection raised of maintainability. The petitioner has challenged the above order before this Court.
O.P.(DRT) No. 3/2017
-6-
available and it only has to be done in an expeditious manner for which alone, there is no need for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
The writ petition would stand closed, leaving open
the petitioner's contentions.
Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
sb/jjj 16/1/17
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to stay the proceedings of the Debt Recovery Tribunal given the availability of a statutory remedy via appeal to the Appellate T
Whether the petitioner's repeated approach to this Court regarding the maintainability of the SARFAESI application constituted unnecessary litigation.
Brahmachari Prakash
Syndicate Bank
K.Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
