Disposed

Sherly Joseph, v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC12 Feb 2019OP (DRT)/20/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged attempts by the Bank to escalate recovery measures while her Security Application was reserved by the DRT. The Court directed the Bank to await final orders until February 27, 2019, ensuring the matter is not adjourned by notification.

What did the court decide?

Directed Bank to await final orders in S.A.No.43 of 2018 until 27.02.2019 and not to take further action.

Sherly Joseph, Vs the Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 23RD MAGHA, 1940

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 20 of 2019

¶6

IN SA 43/2018 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SHERLY JOSEPH, AGED 58 YEARS W/O. LATE JOSEPH, KADEPARAMBU HOUSE, DOOR NO. XIV/193, VARAPUZHA P.O, ERNAKULAM 683517.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.N.SASI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,

¶12

CANANRA BANK, KALOOR BRANCH, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 016.

¶13

2 TICHU TOMY,

¶14

S/O. JOSEPH THOMAS, KIZHAKKODAN HOUSE, BANK OF INDIA COLONY, KALOOR, KOCHI 682 017.

¶15

3 JOSEPH THOMAS, S/O. JOSEPH P.H, KIZHAKOODAN HOUSE, BANK OF INDIA COLONY, KALOOR, KOCHI 682 017.

¶16

4 THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, 5TH FLOOR, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682 036. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR-SC

¶17

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

OP (DRT).No. 20 of 2019

¶19

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The grievance of the petitioner in this case is that even though Securitisation Application No.43 of 2018, filed by her against the measures taken by the respondent Bank, was heard by the Debts Recovery Tribunal ('DRT' for short) on 10.08.2019 and is next listed to 27.02.2019 for final orders, the Bank in the meanwhile, is attempting further action. The petitioner asserts that this conduct of the respondent Bank is in contempt for the authority of the DRT, as also being against all established Principles of litigative propriety.

¶22

The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that they were constrained to take further action because, the DRT was not issuing orders in spite of the fact that the matter was heard on 10.08.2018. He says that since the matter is next listed to 27.02.2019, they will not take any further action until that day and that they may be permitted to pursue further action if no orders are issued by the DRT on that day either.

¶23

When this matter was heard by me on 06.02.2019, I had asked the Registry of this Court to obtain a report from the Tribunal as to the status of the S.A. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal affirms that the S.A was heard on 10.08.2018 and that it is next posted to 27.02.2019. He, however, also adds that he is demitting

¶24

OP (DRT).No. 20 of 2019

¶25

¶26

office on 11.02.2019 and therefore, that he is not sure if final orders will be issued on that day.

¶27

In the afore circumstances, I direct the Bank to await final orders in S.A.No.43 of 2018 until 27.02.2019, and if for any reason, the said S.A is not taken by the other Bench on that day, they will be at liberty to move appropriate applications before the concerned Bench, seeking orders on their intent to move forward under the SARFAESI Act.

¶28

Needless to say, if the competent Bench permits any such action, they will be at liberty to pursue it; but otherwise, judicial and litigative propriety demands that they await final orders in a matter which has been reserved by a Judicial Forum.

¶29

In order to ensure that the parties to this lis are not prejudiced on account of delay, I direct the DRT not to adjourn S.A.No.43 of 2018 by notification, but to list on 27.02.2019, whether orders are issued or otherwise.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

rp-12.2

¶34

OP (DRT).No. 20 of 2019

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM ALONG WITH STAY PETITION IN S.A NO. 43/2018 WITHOUT ANNEXURES. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK WITHOUT ANNEXURES IN SA 43/2018 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24-01-2019 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.

Sherly Joseph, v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sherly Joseph, 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

Elsy Paul, Vs State of Kerala

M/S Sultan and Company, Vs State Bank of India

Kiran Kumar T.S., Vs Thiruvananthapuram District Co. Operative Bank

Mathews George, Vs District Collector and District Magistrate

Anil.B.Menon Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

K.a.Mathew Vs State of Kerala