Disposed

Venu Kumar.K v. State Bank of India

Kerala HC7 Jan 2021OP (DRT)/1/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala addressed a writ petition regarding a South Indian Bank's scheduled sale of secured assets under the SARFAESI Act. The court was approached by borrowers seeking to prevent the sale pending consideration of a Securitisation Application by the non-sitting Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Court balanced the interest in expeditious disposal against the statutory remedy available to

What did the court decide?

The Bank is permitted to accept bids but directed not to process or confirm them for ten days; the Debt Recovery Tribunal is directed to dispose of the stay application and Securitisation Application

Venu Kumar.K Vs State Bank of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

OP (DRT).No.1 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SA 1/2021 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/APPLICANT:

¶8

1 VENU KUMAR.K AGED 58 YEARS S/O. P.S.KESAVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, NO.103, RAMYA REGENCY, F4 CROSS 10TH MAIN, JEEVAN BIMA NAGAR, BANGALURU-560 075.

¶9

2 ABHA THANGOOR VASUDEVAN, AGED 53 YEARS W/O. VENU KUMAR K., NO.103, RAMYA REGENCY, F4 CROSS 10TH MAIN, JEEVAN BIMA NAGAR, BANGALURU-560 075.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.HARISHARMA

¶11

RESPONDENT/DEFENDENT:

¶12

STATE BANK OF INDIA STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH, LMS COMPOUND, OPP. MUSEUM WEST GATE, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI S. EASWARAN -SC

¶15

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

OP (DRT).No.1 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 7^th day of January 2021

¶20

The petitioners have approached this Court

¶21

projecting a singular grievance that, even tough

¶22

they had preferred Ext.P1 Securitisation

¶23

Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal,

¶24

Ernakulam ('Tribunal' for short) same has not

¶25

been considered until now, since the said Tribunal is not sitting.

¶26

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶27

Shri.M.Hari Sharma, submits that on account of

¶28

the fact that the Tribunal is not presently

¶29

sitting, his clients are being subjected to irreparable prejudice because, pending

¶30

consideration of the Securitisation Application,

¶31

the Bank has now scheduled sale of the secured

¶32

assets and has notified it to be conducted on

¶33

11.01.2021. Shri. Hari Sharma, therefore, prays

¶34

that the sale now proposed by the Bank, under

¶35

the provisions of the Securitisation and

¶36

OP (DRT).No.1 OF 2021

¶37

¶38

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

¶39

Enforcement of Securities Interest Act (the 'SARFAESI Act' for short) be directed to be

¶40

deferred and the Tribunal be directed to take up

¶41

and consider the interim application preferred

¶42

along with the Securitisation Application at the earliest.

¶43

3. In response, Shri. S.Easwaran, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank,

¶44

submitted that the sale notification was issued by the Bank on 02.12.2020 but that the

¶45

petitioners chose to wait until 01.01.2021 to

¶46

file the Securitisation Application. He added to

¶47

his submissions by saying that, even though

¶48

there was no sitting of the DRT in Ernakulam,

¶49

the charge had been given to the DRT in Chennai and nothing stopped the petitioners from moving the said Tribunal for interim orders. He,

¶50

therefore, prayed that this writ petition be

¶51

dismissed.

¶52

OP (DRT).No.1 OF 2021

¶53

¶54

4. After contending as above, as an

¶55

alternative suggestion, Shri. Easwaran submitted that if this Court is inclined to grant any

¶56

relief to the petitioners, then the Bank may be permitted to accept the bids on 11.01.2021 and that they are willing to defer consideration of the same for a reasonable time, as this Court may fix.

¶57

5. On hearing Shri.Easwaran as afore, Shri.

¶58

Hari Sharma submitted that it is not correct that his clients had not attempted to have the Securitisation Application moved before the DRT in charge and that in spite of his best efforts, the Tribunal was not listing the matter and that he understands that the sitting in the DRT

¶59

Ernakulam will commence on 11.01.2021. He,

¶60

therefore, reiteratingly prayed that sale of the secured assets be directed to be deferred for at least two weeks therefrom.

¶61

6. When I consider the afore submissions, it

¶62

OP (DRT).No.1 OF 2021

¶63

¶64

is indubitable - it being virtually admitted - that the DRT in Ernakulam has not been sitting for the last few days. It may be true that the DRT in Chennai had been given additional charge, but that by itself, in my view, would not be sufficient to deny reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to move their Securitisation Application, it being a statutory remedy.

¶65

In such circumstances and in view of the

¶66

conflicting interests of the parties, I am of the firm opinion that this writ petition needs to be ordered in the following lines:

¶67

i) The respondent Bank is permitted to

¶68

accept the bids on 11.01.2021, as per their

¶69

original sale notification; but they are directed not to process the same or to

¶70

confirm it for a period of ten days

¶71

therefrom.

¶72

ii) The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, is directed to take up the stay

¶73

OP (DRT).No.1 OF 2021

¶74

application preferred by the petitioners along with their Securitisation Application and dispose of the same, after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to both sides, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than one week from 11.01.2021.

¶75

iii) Needless to say, depending upon the

¶76

orders to be issued by the DRT, the Bank will be at liberty to deal with the bids they have received in terms of their sale

¶77

notification.

¶78

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶79

Sd/-

¶80

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶81

JUDGE

¶82

¶83

OP (DRT).No.1 OF 2021

¶84

¶85

APPENDIX

¶86

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶87

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF S.A.NO.1 OF 2021 ON THE FILES OF DRT-II, ERNAKULAM.

¶88

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1 OF 2021 IN S.A.NO.1 OF 2021 ON THE FILES OF DRT-II, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.2 OF 2021 IN S.A.NO.1 OF 2021 ON THE FILES OF DRT-II, ERNAKULAM.

¶89

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶90

¶91

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Venu Kumar.K v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venu Kumar.K v. State Bank of India

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

Prasannakumar Vs Hdfc Bank

Anoop Poulose Vs Joint Labour Commissioner

Ashai Kumar Vs the Trivandrum Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

The Mes International School Vs State Bank of India

Bobina Jacob Vs the Labour Commissioner

Medical and Visual Technologies Ltd. Vs the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)