Partly allowed

Stephen John v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jul 2018WP(C)/15863/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking to recover a secured asset requested withdrawal of a writ petition with liberty to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Court accorded a fortnight to enhance justice but clarified that the merits of the case remain untouched.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Bank directed to defer coercive steps for a fortnight to allow petitioners to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal; writ petition disposed of with clarification that merits were not addresse

Stephen John Vs State of Kerala — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶3

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶4

PETITIONERS

¶5

1 STEPHEN JOHN

¶6

AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.JOHN, GOLDEN DENS, VENNALA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 028.

¶7

2 MARY STEPHEN AGED 71 YEARS, W/O.STEPHEN JOHN, GOLDEN DENS, VENNALA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 028.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI (VENNELA) SMT.C.SREELAKSHMI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA

¶11

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,

¶12

HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM-695 001.

¶13

CANARA BANK LTD

¶14

SPECIALIZED SME BRANCH, KODAI TOWER, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 024, REPRESENTED BY SENIOR MANAGER,

¶15

REJI M.P. AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.PAULOSE, IOC ASSET CITY BAY, THIRPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 301.

¶16

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVEISTATION REPRESENTED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ACB, COCHIN-682 011.

¶17

R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR R4 BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR R4 BY ADV. SRI. SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR, SPL.P.P. FOR C.B.I. R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKAN R BY SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SC, CANARA BANK

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 15863 of 2018 (G)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP 311/2018 IN MC NO.28/2018 OF THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE WPC NO.5824/2018 WITHOUT EXHIBITS FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN WPC NO.5824/2018 FILED BY THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT .

¶23

JJJ

¶24

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶25

W.P.(C) No. 15863 of 2018 (G)

¶26

Dated: 17^th July, 2018

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioners-borrowers, on default, faced recovery proceedings. They filed this writ petition making very serious allegations against the respondent Bank. They also sought an enquiry by the CBI, the fourth respondent. This Court on 11.05.2018 stayed the petitioners' dispossession from the secured asset.

¶29

Now, when the matter is taken up for disposal, the petitioners' counsel has submitted that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to approach an appropriate forum, say the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), to ventilate their grievance. So he wants this Court to direct the respondent Bank to defer coercive steps for a fortnight.

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 15863/2018

¶31

-2-

¶32

The respondent Bank's counsel does oppose this Court's granting any further time. According to him, without any just cause, the petitioners have already enjoyed an interim stay, besides making unfounded allegations against the Bank.

¶33

There is substance in the respondent Counsel's submission that the petitioners have enjoyed stay till now. Now, faced with final disposal, the petitioners want to withdraw the writ petition, so that they could approach the DRT, which they could have done earlier, too.

¶34

Nevertheless, it only serves the interest of justice if the petitioners are provided breathing time of a fortnight to approach the DRT, as they have submitted before this Court.

¶35

I, therefore, dispose of the writ petition observing that the petitioners are free to take whatever legal recourse as they deem fit. Only for a period of two weeks from today will the

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 15863/2018

¶37

-3-

¶38

respondent Bank defer coercive steps. I abundantly clarify that

¶39

this Court has not observed anything on merits.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶42

jjj 17/07/2018

Stephen John v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Stephen John v. State of Kerala

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

Markose Kuzhalanattu Vs the Authorised Officer

Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Ajay Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner

A.P. Baby Vs the Authorized Officer/Regional Manager

K.K Praveen Vs Authorized Officer

C. Dileep Vs the Co-Operative Arbitration Court