Disposed

Nandakumar P.K v. the Canara Bank

Kerala HC15 Dec 2021OP (DRT)/320/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OP (DRT) No. 320 of 2021, the court directed the Debt Recovery Tribunal to consider a petition for returning original documents after the petitioner settled the dues with the respondent bank and the original suit was closed. The petition before the DRT was disposed of following this direction.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 application within two weeks.

Nandakumar P.K Vs the Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

OP (DRT) NO. 320 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TA 152/2021 OF DEBT RECOVERY

¶7

TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

NANDAKUMAR P.K, AGED 50 YEARS S/O K.KRISHNAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR M/S.KRISHNAMATHI INDUSTRIES HARIGOURI BUILDINGS, MP 4/872B, SREEKRISHNA GARDENS, MALAYIKIL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 695 771

¶10

BY ADV NAVEEN RADHAKRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE CANARA BANK POOJAPURA BRANCH POOJAPURA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 012

¶13

2 THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL- II REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM – 682 036

¶14

SRI.V.B.HARINARAYANAN SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC

¶15

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

OP (DRT) NO. 320 OF 2021 ..2..

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶19

during the pendency of O.A.No.165/2012 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam, the amount due to the Bank has been fully settled and accordingly, the original application has been closed. The limited prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is for return of the original sale deed No.283/2005 dated 20.07.2005, which was produced as document No.A8 before the Tribunal. According to the petitioner, since there was no sitting before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam, M.A.No.189/2021 in T.A.No.152/2021 (old O.A.No.165/2012) is not so far taken up for consideration. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank and the learned CGC. Notice to 2^nd respondent is dispensed with.

¶20

OP (DRT) NO. 320 OF 2021 ..3..

¶21

The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the amount has been paid and the Bank has recorded in full and final satisfaction of the settlement and they have no objection in returning the original documents produced before the Tribunal.

¶22

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 application, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶23

The original petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶24

Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶25

SB/15/12/2021

¶26

OP (DRT) NO. 320 OF 2021 ..4..

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONERS EXTS.

¶29

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 18.11.21 ISSUED BY THE CANARA BANK POOJAPPURA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶30

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY RESPONDENT BANK DATED 15.09.2021

Nandakumar P.K v. the Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandakumar P.K v. the Canara Bank

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

Jameela Beevi Vs the Corporation Bank

Reji M.V. Vs Government of Kerala

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Vs the Commissionr of Central Excise

Contour Constructions Pvt. Ltd, Vs State of Kerala

Contour Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Rathy Venu, Vs the Authorised Officer