Disposed

M/S.Regio Goods Private Limited v. the Authorised Officer, Vijaya Bank

Kerala HC23 Mar 2018OP (DRT)/11/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of original petitions filed by Regio Foods Pvt. Ltd. against dispossession actions under the SARFAESI Act. The court directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Ernakulam to decide pending stay petitions within a week and restrained dispossession of the petitioners until such orders are passed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Ernakulam to consider and pass orders on pending stay petitions within a week; restrained dispossession pending such orders.

M/S.Regio Goods Private Limited Vs the Authorised… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶3

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 2ND CHAITHRA,1940

¶4

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SA 284/2017 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶5

PETITIONER(S)

¶6

M/S.REGIO fOODS PRIVATE LIMITED 7/444-A, MADHANM ROAD, PETTA, MARADU, KOCHI REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER VIDYA B.

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.ASP.KURUP SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, VIJAYA BANK M.G.ROAD BRANCH, JOSE ANNEX, JOSE JUNCTION - 682 016.

¶10

M/S. INTEGRATED RUBION EXPORTS LTD RUBION COMPLEX, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE AROOR P.O., AROOR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶11

THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶12

R BY SMT.LATHA ANAND,SC, VIJAYA BANK

¶13

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-032018, ALONG WITH OPDRT NOS. 12 & 15 of 2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP (DRT).No. 11 of 2018 (O)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

EXHIBITS P1 XEROX COPY OF LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 25.6.2016 EXECUTED BETWEEN RESPONDETS 1 & 2. EXHIBITS P2 XEROX COPY OF SA NO. 284/2017 PENDING BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDNET (WITHOUT ANNEXURES).

¶18

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

SD/-

P.A. TO JUDGE

SKS

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶24

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

¶25

O.P.(DRT) Nos. 11, 12 & 15 of 2018

¶26

Dated this the 23^rd day of March, 2018

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Petitioners are occupying buildings which are securities for the credit facilities extended by Vijaya Bank (the bank) to M/s.Integrated Rubion Exports Ltd. When the petitioners were attempted to be dispossessed from the buildings in furtherance to the proceedings initiated by the bank against M/s.Integrated Rubion Exports Ltd. under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act), they have approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal in three different securitization applications. The specific case of the petitioners is that though the securitization applications have been heard and taken for disposal, orders are yet to be passed,

¶29

¶30

O.P.(DRT.) Nos.11, 12 & 15 of 2018

¶31

and the bank is attempting to dispossess them from the buildings in the meanwhile. The petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate directions in this regard, in these original petitions.

¶32

Today, when these matters were taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since final orders have not been passed in the securitization applications, the petitioners preferred stay petitions in the securitization applications preferred by them and orders are not being passed by the Tribunal on the stay petitions as well.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Standing Counsel for the bank.

¶34

When there is delay in passing final orders in the securitisation applications, according to me, the Tribunal should have passed orders in the stay petitions preferred by the petitioners. In the said view of the matter, the original petitions are disposed of directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Ernakulam to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions preferred by the petitioners in S.A.Nos.284, 273 and 274 of 2017, within a week from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that till orders are passed in the stay

¶35

¶36

O.P.(DRT.) Nos.11, 12 & 15 of 2018

¶37

petitions as directed above, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the buildings.

¶38

sd/P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

¶39

SKS

M/S.Regio Goods Private Limited v. the Authorised Officer, Vijaya Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Regio Goods Private Limited v. the Authorised Officer, Vijaya 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

Padmakumar Vs Authorised Officer

Asha C Nair Vs Bijumon Zacharia

A.P.Shahabudeen Vs Smt.Deepa L.S

The Thiruvananthapuram District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Radha

The Thiruvananthapuram District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Baiju

Saffiyath Vs Shafi Pallatheril Abdul Latheef