Dismissed

C.a.Salim v. Syndicate Bank

Kerala HC24 May 2017OP (DRT)/45/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an O.P.(DRT) filed against a Debt Recovery Tribunal order under the SARFAESI Act. The court directed the petitioner to exercise the statutory appeal remedy before the DRAT within three weeks and continued the interim stay pending such appeal. Appeal: West Bengal in Re W/A No. 41 of 1995 (SC) was not cited.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file appeal under S. 18 SARFAESI Act within three weeks; interim stay continues for one month.

C.a.Salim Vs Syndicate Bank — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2017/3RD JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 45 of 2017 (O)

¶6

TSA. 1145/2016 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

C.A.SALIM, S/O.ABDU HAJJI, CITY CENTRE, ROUND WEST, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT KAJAH MANZIL, SAW MILL ROAD, KOORKANCHERRY, THRISSUR.680 007.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.DILIP SRI.SAJU N.A. SMT.G.LEKHA SMT.S.AMBILY SMT.UMA.G.KRISHNAN SMT.DHANYA V.PAVANA SMT.P.J.FLONY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. SYNDICATE BANK, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR.680 001. 2. REGHUNATHAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, EDAKULAM, POOMANGALAM, MUKUNDAPURAM, PROPRIETOR BLUE CHIPS TECHNOLOTIES, 4TH FLOOR, CITY CENTRE, THRISSUR.

¶12

3. THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 2 1ST FLOOR, K.S.H.B BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 036, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. R1 BY SRI.R.S. KALKURA, SC, SYNDICATE BANK R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.RENJITH R3 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶13

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-05-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

SKG

¶15

OP (DRT).No. 45 of 2017 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1 T.S.A. NO.1145/2016 (S.A.NO.205/2008) FILED BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P2 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF 1ST DEFENDANT IN T.S.A.NO.1145/2016 (S.A.NO.205/2008). EXHIBIT P3 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF 2ND DEFENDANT IN T.S.A.NO.1145/2016 (S.A.NO.205/2008). EXHIBIT P4 ONE TIME SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL OF PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 FINAL ORDER IN T.S.A.NO.1145/2016 (S.A.NO.205/2008 BY THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, ERNAKULAM.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

----------------------NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

SKG

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶25

............................................................. O.P.(DRT).No.45 of 2017

¶26

............................................................. Dated this the 24^nd day of May, 2017

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioner in the O.P(DRT) was the applicant in S.A No.205 of 2008 pending before the 3^rd respondent Tribunal. The said S.A was filed challenging the measures taken by the respondent bank under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act'. The petitioner had impugned the said steps taken by the respondent bank, inter alia, on the ground that, the respondent bank had resorted to the steps under Section 13 (4) without furnishing a reply as envisaged under Section 13 (3A) to the petitioner. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), which considered the matter proceeded to pass Ext.P5 order dismissing the S.A filed by the petitioner. It is the said order of the Tribunal dismissing the S.A that is impugned in the present O.P(DRT).

¶29

-2-

¶30

O.P.(DRT).No.45 of 2017

¶31

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent bank and also the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶32

The O.P(DRT) was admitted by this Court on 11.04.2017 and by an interim order of the same date this Court granted an interim stay of further proceedings for a period of six weeks subject to the petitioner paying an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- within one month from the date of the order. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has since effected payment of the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- albeit belatedly.

¶33

On a consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that, there is essentially a dispute with regard to the nature of the response of the respondent bank to the representations/objections filed by the petitioner under Section 13 (3A) of the SARFAESI Act. While it is a case of the petitioner that the response of the respondent bank was not in the manner envisaged under Section 13 (3A), it is the

¶34

-3-

¶35

O.P.(DRT).No.45 of 2017

¶36

specific case of the bank that they had actually invited the petitioner for a discussion and had intimated the stand of the bank with regard to the non-tenability of the objections of the petitioner at the said discussion. At any rate, I find that, in Ext.P5 order that is impugned in the O.P(DRT), the Tribunal accepts the version of the bank and finds that there was no non-compliance with the provisions of Section 13 (3A) for the purposes of holding that the steps taken by the respondent bank were vitiated. Inasmuch as Ext.P5 order passed by the DRT in an appealable one in terms of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, I am of the view that, the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy of preferring an appeal against Ext.P5 order before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) in terms of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. I note from the files that the O.P(DRT) was presented on 10.04.2017, which is within the statutory period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Ext.P5 order, and hence, the petitioner had approached this Court within the statutory period allowed under the SARFAESI Act for preferring an appeal against Ext.P5 order. I, therefore, direct that if the petitioner prefers an appeal before the DRAT against Ext.P5 order within a period of

¶37

-4-

¶38

O.P.(DRT).No.45 of 2017

¶39

three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, then the DRT shall consider the appeal as one filed within the time granted under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act and proceed to adjudicate the same in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner. It is further made clear that, to enable the petitioner to approach the appellate Tribunal within the period granted above and to obtain orders from the said Tribunal in the appeal to be preferred, the interim order of stay of SARFAESI proceedings granted by this Court on 11.04.2017 shall continue to be in force for a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶42

mns/24.05.17

C.a.Salim v. Syndicate Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.a.Salim v. Syndicate Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.a.Saleem Vs Syndicate Bank

Manager, S.N.G.S High School Vs Controlling Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act

T.S. Santhosh Vs M/S. Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd.

Rajeevan V.N Vs the Assistant Engineer

Jessiya W/O. Ahmed Vs P.K.Nazar

Thushara Shan Vs the Mattanchery Mahajanik