Disposed

Kochurani Antony v. Authorised Officer

Kerala HC11 Oct 2021OP (DRT)/8/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a demand notice and sale notice issued by a bank under SARFAESI. The Court held that since the auction sale and mutation had already occurred, there was no imperative reason for interference, leaving the petitioner to pursue remedies in the pending securitisation application before the DRT thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Original petition disposed of; liberty given to seek remedy in pending securitisation application after DRT recommences functioning.

Kochurani Antony Vs Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 19TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

OP (DRT) NO. 8 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST SA 93/2019 OF DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, ERNAKULAM,

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

KOCHURANI ANTONY AGED 76 YEARS, W/O ANTONY MATHEW, VILLA NO 9, 34/C/9-11 SHWAS MYSTIC BELLS, KANIYAMPUZHA ROAD, ELOOR, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT AMRITHA, MUTRRA 115, POONITHURA P.O. TRIPUNITHURA, KOCHI-682 038.

¶9

BY ADV M.RETHEESHKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 AUTHORISED OFFICER CANARA BANK, ELOOR BRANCH (1532) VIMALS BUILDING, ILLIKKAPDY PIN-682 306. 2 THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, ELOOR BRANCH (1532) VIMALS BUILDING, ILLIKKAPDY PIN-682 306.

¶12

¶13

ADVS.SAJU N.A. ADV.G.LEKHA

¶14

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

O.P.(DRT) No.8/21

¶16

-:2:-

¶17

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶18

O.P.(DRT) No.8 of 2021

¶19

Dated this the 11^th day of October, 2021

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 demand notice and Ext.P8 sale

¶22

notice and seeks for a direction to dispose of the stay petitions filed by the petitioner in the pending securitisation application. It is noticed that Ext.P2 demand notice is dated 07.11.2018 while Ext.P8 sale notice is dated 10.02.2021.

¶23

While this Court entertained a doubt regarding the delay in filing this original petition, Adv. Saju N.A., the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the sale pursuant to Ext.P8 had taken place and even the sale certificate was registered in the name of the auction purchaser. It was also informed that mutation had already been effected into the name of the auction purchaser.

¶24

Having regard to the circumstances mentioned above, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, there is no reason for this Court to interfere at this sage. I find from the proceedings of this Court on 4.3.2021 that this Court had directed

¶25

O.P.(DRT) No.8/21

¶26

-:3:-

¶27

the petitioner to pursue the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and had declined to grant any interim order.

¶28

In the circumstances mentioned above, since the sale has

¶29

already taken place, nothing further remains for consideration before this Court in this original petition. Suffice to say, remedy of the petitioner is to pursue the securitisation application pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam as S.A. No.93 of 2019. Since the Tribunal is not functioning at the moment, a direction for early disposal of the said application will be redundant.

¶30

Accordingly, this original petition is disposed of leaving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in the securitisation application, after the Tribunal commences its sitting.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

vps

O.P.(DRT) No.8/21

-:4:-

APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 8/2021

¶37

PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 13.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN ELOOR.

¶39

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7.11.2018 UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAES ACT, 2002 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶40

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 3820/2019 DATED 11.2.2019 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY FILED IN IA NO 422/2019 IN SA NO 93/2019 BEFORE THE DRT-1, ERNAKULAM BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 3.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER ELOOR VILLAGE OFFICE EXHIBIT P5 (a) TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATE 3.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELOOR VILLAGE OFFICE

¶41

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 3.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELOOR VILLAGE OFFICE

¶42

EXHIBIT P6 (a) TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE REPLY DATED 3.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELOOR VILLAGE OFFICE TO THE PETITIONER

¶43

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOTS OF THE ELECTRONIC MAIL DATED 20.2.2021 SENT TO THE PRINCIPAL BORROWER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶44

O.P.(DRT) No.8/21

¶45

-:5:-

¶46

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 10.2.2021 SENT TO THE PRINCIPAL BORROWER VIA E-MAIL SERVICE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION ID NOT 2134 OF 2021 FILED BEFORE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1 ERNAKULAM

Kochurani Antony v. Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kochurani Antony v. Authorised Officer

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

Sreejith K.V. Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Esaf (Evangelical Social Action Forum) Society, Vs the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise

Mohanan Nair Vs Union of India

A. Ramesh Kumar Vs Chief Manager/Authorized Officer

Mar Athanasius Memorial Higher Secondary School, Vs Appellate Authority [Labour Commissioner]

Mfar Real Tours Private Limited, Vs Union of India