N.v.Kurien Vs Canara Bank

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 75 of 2018

¶6

OA 129/2017 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM OA 193/2017 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)

¶8

N.V.KURIEN AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.N.K.VARGHESE, NADUVILAMULLOTH HOUSE, ASHOKA ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM-682017.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SAJI MATHEW SRI.DENU JOSEPH SMT.NEETHU REGHUKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

CANARA BANK BANERJI ROAD BRANCH, ERNAKULAM-682018.

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SMT.THANKOM.G R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.M.MURUGAN R BY SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SC, CANARA BANK

¶13

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

acd

¶15

OP (DRT).No. 75 of 2018 (O)

¶16

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF SECURITIZATION APPLICATION NO.289/2016 FILED BEFORE THE DRT-I, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF SECURITIZATION APPLICATION NO.285/20156 FILED BEFORE THE DRT-I, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REDEMPTION PETITION AS I.A.NO.435/2017 IN O.A.NO.129/2017.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REDEMPTION PETITION AS I.A.NO.434/2017 IN O.A.NO.193/2017.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN I.A.NO.435/2017 IN O.A.NO.129/2017 BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN I.A.NO.434/2017 IN O.A.NO.193/2017 BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.
EXHIBIT P7	TYPED COPY OF CRL.M.P.NO.266/2018 FILED BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶19

TRUE COPY

¶20

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶21

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶22

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

¶23

O.P.(DRT) No .75 of 2018

¶24

Dated this the 5^th day of June, 2018

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Petitioner was enjoying credit facilities from the respondent bank (the bank). As the petitioner failed to pay the amounts due to the bank in respect of the facilities, two separate proceedings have been initiated by the bank against the petitioner under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act (the RDB Act) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The said proceedings are pending. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the SARFAESI Act) against the securities as well. Challenging the possession notice issued by the bank in the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner filed two applications under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The said applications are also pending. It is stated by the petitioner that though the applications preferred by the petitioner under Section 17 of the SARFAESI

¶27

2

¶28

O.P.(DRT) No.75/18

¶29

Act were heard finally, orders are yet to be passed. While so, it is stated that with a view to purchase peace, the petitioner filed Exts.P3 and P4 interlocutory applications in the proceedings under the RDB Act seeking permission to pay the amounts claimed by the bank in convenient instalments without prejudice to his right to contest the proceedings. It is stated that the said applications were filed since the amounts claimed by the bank in the proceedings is far above the amounts due from the petitioner. During the pendency of the said interlocutory applications, the bank initiated proceedings under Section 14 of the Act for dispossessing the petitioner from the securities. The original petition is filed at that point of time seeking, among others, directions to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 and P4 applications.

¶30

When this matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to pay the amounts claimed by the bank in reasonable instalments, without prejudice to his right to contest the proceedings under the RDB Act.

¶31

The learned counsel for the bank has not raised any objection against the petitioner liquidating the liability.

¶32

In so far as the petitioner has a specific case

¶33

3

¶34

O.P.(DRT) No.75/18

¶35

that the amounts claimed by the bank is not the amounts due, having regard to the orders issued by this Court in similar writ petitions, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of as follows:

¶36

(i) The petitioner shall pay the outstanding liability in the loan accounts with interest due in ten equal monthly instalments, of which the first instalment shall be paid within one month from today.

¶37

(ii) If the petitioner remits the outstanding liability in the loan accounts as directed above, further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act against the securities shall be deferred. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner commits default in remitting any one of the instalments as directed, the bank will be at liberty to revive and continue the proceedings already initiated against the securities.

¶38

(iii) The payment of dues of the bank in terms of this judgment will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to contest the proceedings initiated by the bank under the RDB Act.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

P.B. SURESH KUMAR,

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

DSV/6/6/18

N.v.Kurien v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.v.Kurien v. Canara 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

Subash Krishnankutty Menon Vs K.Imba Shekhar

Ajith K. Cheriyan Vs Authorised Officer

Abdul Satha Y. Vs Federal Bank Ltd.

Hareesh V.K Vs Sri.Y.Ismail Kunju

Babu Thomas Vs Authorized Officer (Under Sarfaesi Act)

Selvaraj Vs Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd.