Allowed

Thomas George v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC11 Jul 2018OP (DRT)/90/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this over-ordering petition, the court examined repeated defaults by the appellants in debt recovery proceedings. After finding the impugned dismissal order was well-reasoned with no legal infirmity, the court restored the appeal to the Tribunal on the condition of the petitioners bearing costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Second Appeal restored to Tribunal file; Petitioners directed to pay Rs. 10,000 cost to Legal Service Authority.

Thomas George Vs the Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

OP (DRT).No.90 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN TSA 1230/2016 (SA 662/2011)of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS

¶8

1 THOMAS GEORGE AGED 52 YEARS, S/O K.GEORGE, MODIYIL HOUSE, KUMBANADU PO, KUMBANAD-689547.

¶9

2 JESSY THOMAS, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O THOMAS GEORGE, MODIYIL HOUSE,KUMBANADU PO, KUMBANAD-689547.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN

¶11

SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA -689 645.

¶14

2. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, REGISTERED OFFICE, SIB HOUSE, T.B ROAD, P.B NO.28, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶15

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, BRANCH THIRUVALLA, P.B NO.27, NEAR SCS JUNCTION, THIRUVALLA-689101.

¶16

R BY SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BAN

¶17

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-07-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

OP (DRT).No. 90 of 2018 (O)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE PERIOD OF 1.4.2008 TO 10.6.2009. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10.6.2009 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION DATED 2.9.2010 UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF SARFAESI ACT IN THE INDIAN EXPRESS. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.02.2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.34943/2011. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS SHEET IN S.A NO.662/2011. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.1.2018 IN I.A NO.2054/2015 IN S.A NO.662/2011.

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE.

acd

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶26

O.P.(DRT) No.90 of 2018

¶27

Dated this the 11^th day of July, 2018

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner defaulters approached the Tribunal through S.A.No.662/2011. Initially, on 7.2.2013, the Tribunal dismissed the S.A. for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.895/2013. Through order dated 2.5.2013, the Tribunal allowed the I.A and restored the S.A. to the file. Again on 9.7.2015, neither the petitioners nor their counsel was present before the Tribunal. So again the Tribunal was constrained to dismiss the S.A.

¶30

Once again the petitioners filed I.A.No.2054/2015, which the tribunal dismissed through Ext.P6.

¶31

The petitioners' counsel has persistently submitted that it is a fit case to be adjudicated on merit and any dismissal on technicalities will inflict substantial prejudice on the petitioner.

¶32

The respondents' counsel on the other hand

¶33

O.P.(DRT)No.90/2018

¶34

¶35

submitted that the petitioners have been deliberately dragging the proceedings. According to her, this is the third writ petition before this Court. She has also submitted that on an earlier occasion the petitioners wanted the matter to refer to mediation, but did not appear before the mediation.

¶36

In reply, the petitioners' counsel submits that the

¶37

earlier writ petitions are on different causes of action. He has also submitted that the petitioners could not be present for mediation because they did not receive the notice on time.

¶38

Ext.P6 impugned order perused. I do not find any legal infirmity. It is, indeed, a well reasoned order. The only constraint, I may observe, is that courts always prefer to have the matter decided on merits rather than technicalities, unless the suitors conduct is reprehensible and amounts to abuse of process.

¶39

Under these circumstances, I set aside Ext.P6 and consequently, restore the S.A to the file of the Tribunal. I however, abundantly clarify that the Tribunal may proceed

¶40

O.P.(DRT)No.90/2018

¶41

¶42

with the matter as it desires. And any further default on the petitioners' part should not entail them for any equitable consideration. Given the petitioners' persisting default, the writ petition is allowed on the condition of the petitioners paying the cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the Kerala Legal Service Authority.

¶43

Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.

¶44

acd

¶45

O.P.(DRT)No.90/2018 4

¶46

O.P.(DRT)No.90/2018 5

Thomas George v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas George v. the Authorised Officer

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

Julie K.Varghese Vs Pathanamthitta District Co-Operative Bank, Represented by It'S General Manager

P.Pankajakashan Vs the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

M/S. Selfshine Polymers India Private Vs State of Kerlaa

Muhammed P.S Vs Trichur Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

A.F. Babu Vs Goods and Service Tax Council

Eon Malls and Infraprojects LLP Vs State Tax Officer