Dismissed

Shamana Anzar v. the Punjab National Bank

Kerala HC3 Sept 2019OP(Crl.)/380/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to keep criminal proceedings in abeyance and set aside arrest warrants. The court ruled the petition was devoid of merit as the bank had already constituted a committee and offered a one-time settlement.

What did the court decide?

The Original Petition is dismissed as it has become devoid of merits due to the formation of the Committee and the decision taken on the firm's application.

Shamana Anzar Vs the Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 12TH BHADRA, 1941 OP(Crl.).No.380 OF 2019

¶5

IN S.T 103/2018 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHAMANA ANZAR AGED 44 YEARS W/O.M.A.ANZAR, RESIDING AT SHAMNA GARDENS, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691004, THE MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S. AA SNACKS AT KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM, PIN-691004.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SHRI.SUMEEN S. SMT.PARVATHY S.KRISHNAN SHRI.MITHUN P.

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK KOLLAM MAIN BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN-691001.

¶11

BY ADV.SANTHEEP ANKARATH -SC

¶12

THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

OP(Crl.).No.380 OF 2019 2

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Dated this the 3rd day of September 2019

¶16

This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following reliefs:-

¶17

“(i) To direct that the proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kollam in S.T. No.103/2018 may kindly be kept in abeyance till a decision on the revival of the unit of the petitioner is taken by the Committee as directed in Ext.P3 judgment.

¶18

(ii) To set aside the warrant of arrest and all further proceedings initiated against the petitioner in S.T.No.103/2018 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kollam.

¶19

(iii) Any other relief that this Honourable Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶20

The facts of the case in brief are to the following effect:-

¶21

Petitioner is the partner of M/s.A.A.Snacks, a firm engaged in the business of manufacture of cashew kernels. Since the firm had defaulted the amount due to the bank, it had initiated proceedings under the Securitisation Act against the industrial units run by the firm. Government having been apprised of the state of affairs, have issued G.O.(Rt) No.1279/2018/ID dated 14.11.2018 with a view to ameliorate the conditions of cashew manufacturing units, copy of which is

¶22

OP(Crl.).No.380 OF 2019 3

¶23

produced alongwith this Original Petition as Ext.P1. As per Ext.P1, a committee consisting of representatives from Reserve Bank of India, Industries Department and that of various other banks including the respondent bank. The prime purpose behind formation of committee as per Ext.P1 was to assess the financial viability of various cashew processing units. Ext.P1 was modified by another order issued by Government as G.O(Rt) No.1319/2018/ID dated 29.11.2018 and the composition of committee as proposed by Government order issued originally was modified partially, by removing representatives of the Reserve Bank of India, true copy of which is produced alongwith as Ext.P2.

¶24

The respondent bank had issued demand notice dated 1.7.2016 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act and lateron possession notice dated 23.9.2016. Advocate Commissioner was also appointed to take possession of the properties of the firm.

¶25

In the meantime, the firm through its Managing Partner submitted an application for revival before the Cashew State Board Ltd. He also approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.5128/2019 which was disposed of alongwith connected matters by a common judgment dated 22.2.2019, true copy of which is produced alongwith the petition on hand

¶26

OP(Crl.).No.380 OF 2019 4

¶27

as Ext.P3. As per Ext.P3, this Court had directed the Managing Partner of the firm to place the claim before the committee constituted pursuant to Ext.P1 issued by Government. Ext.P3 also directed the committee after it's constitution to take a decision on the application pending before it within one month.

¶28

In the meantime a cheque issued as security while availing financial support from respondent bank presented for encashment to meet the defaulted payment was bounced for insufficiency of funds and thereupon a prosecution for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I Act') was initiated by the respondent bank against petitioner, true copy of which is produced alongwith as Ext.P4.

¶29

According to Sri.J.R.Prem Navaz, the proceedings initiated through Ext.P4 are not liable to be continued, in view of Ext.P3 judgment and therefore, he seeks to keep all proceedings initiated on the private complaint taken cognizance of as S.T.No.103/2018 in abeyance till a decision is taken by the Committee on the application preferred to them by the firm through its Managing Partner.

¶30

Sri.Santheep Ankarath, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent submitted that O.P(Crl)

¶31

OP(Crl.).No.380 OF 2019 5

¶32

No.384/2019 is an application filed by Sri.Anzar, the Managing Partner of M/s.A.A.Snacks seeking similar relief and in that a statement alongwith the report of action taken by the State Level Banking Committee (for short 'the SLBC') was filed as Ext.R1(a) and that can be adopted in the case on hand also. It is seen stated in the statement filed by the 1^st respondent that Committee has taken decision on issues relating to M/s.A.A Snacks of which petitioner is a partner and the same has been forwarded by SLBC vide mail dated 21.06.2019. It is also stated that the Managing Partner of firm was issued with a notice in tune with the recommendations of the Committee forwarded by SLBC, directing him to approach the Bank for availing the benefit of one time settlement. Notice was issued in that regard to the Managing Partner on 04.07.2019. It is further stated that he was directed to appear for a personal hearing on 09.07.2019 at the Circle Office of the 1^st respondent Bank at Ernakulam. Managing Partner was also demanded over telephone to appear at the Circle Office on 09.07.2019. Despite informations furnished as above, it is stated that he did not turn up on 09.07.2019. In consideration of the request made by the Managing Partner of M/s.A.A.Snacks, opportunity to appear for settlement of accounts in tune with the recommendations issued by the committee was granted to him.

¶33

OP(Crl.).No.380 OF 2019 6

¶34

Accordingly, Managing Partner was directed to appear to avail the benefit on 12.07.2019. A registered letter was also stated as sent on 16.07.2019, requesting him to submit his One Time Settlement proposal for settling the accounts within seven days of receipt of the letter. The letter was also stated as collected by him from the Bank personally. E-mail was also stated as sent to the firm on 17.07.2019 in that regard. It was reported that the Managing Partner did not turn up or submit his proposal for One Time Settlement on behalf of the firm.

¶35

From the statement filed by the 1^st respondent, it follows that the Committee as directed in Ext.P3 judgment was constituted and it has considered the issues relating to M/s.A.A.Snacks. The Committee found its revival impracticable and one time settlement being the only alternative remedy possible, that was offered to him. Opportunity was granted to avail that benefit. Eventhough, submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that report of the Committee containing the particulars of the decision taken by it was not served on her and therefore she was unaware of the facility offered, the same was stoutly denied by the 1^st respondent stating that the firm was informed through its Managing Partner severally. The fact that a second opportunity was sought by the Managing Partner of the firm to

¶36

OP(Crl.).No.380 OF 2019 7

¶37

avail the benefit of one time settlement, itself shows that the firm was well informed of the decision taken by the committee. If the firm was not aware of the decision taken by the Committee or else it was not informed about the particulars of the decision taken by the Committee, it ought not to have asked for another opportunity through it's managing partner for one time settlement as stated by the 1^st respondent in its statement.

¶38

However the reliefs sought in the Original Petition has become infructuous in view of the formation of the Committee as directed in Ext.P3 judgment and decision taken by it on issues relating to the firm of which the petitioner is the partner. Therefore, O.P.(Crl.) being devoid of merits is dismissed leaving open liberty to the petitioner to challenge the constitution of the committee and the decision taken by it against her, if she is aggrieved by any of those, before appropriate forum as permitted by law.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH

JUDGE

OP(Crl.).No.380 OF 2019 8

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT P1	COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING NO. G.O.(RT) NO.1279/2018/ID DATED 14.11.2018.
EXHIBIT P2	COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.1319/2018/ID DATED 29.11.2018.
EXHIBIT P3	THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) BEARING NO.5128 OF 2019 DATED 22.2.2019 PASSED BY THE SINGLE BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P4	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN ST NO.103 OF 2018 AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5	COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 18.06.2018.

¶47

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: NIL

¶48

Shamana Anzar v. the Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamana Anzar v. the Punjab National 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

Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance Co(P) Ltd. Vs Sreejith.a.P

Davi.v.Thattil Vs Preetha Pandian

Klm Chits Syndicate Vs State of Kerala

Krishnakumar a., Vs the State of Kerala

Manish Thaper Vs State of Kerala

State Represented by the Assistant Vs Nagarajan