Disposed

Sunny Kuriakose v. City Union Bank Limited

Kerala HC10 Oct 2022OP (DRT)/23/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners approached the High Court challenging SARFAESI proceedings due to the Tribunal's closure. After paying Rs.50 lakhs, the court directed the bank to consider a settlement proposal filed within ten days, adjourning further proceedings if submitted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file a suitable proposal for settlement before the Authorized Officer within ten days; proceedings under SARFAESI Act adjourned pending decision if filed.

Sunny Kuriakose Vs City Union Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 18TH ASWINA, 1944

¶5

OP (DRT) NO. 23 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 SUNNY KURIAKOSE AGED 61 YEARS THEKKAMADATHIL, CHINGAVANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 696531 2 MANJU SUNNY AGED 50 YEARS THEKKAMADATHIL, CHINGAVANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 696531 3 ELVEIS SUNNY AGED 30 YEARS THEKKAMADATHIL, CHINGAVANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 696531 BY ADVS. C.S.MANU DILU JOSEPH C.A.ANUPAMAN T.B.SIVAPRASAD C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR MANJU E.R. ANANDHU SATHEESH ALINT JOSEPH PAUL JOSE

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 CITY UNION BANK LIMITED KOTTAYAM BRANCH, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 686001 2 AUTHORISED OFFICER CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, CREDIT RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, 'NARAYANA', ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, NO.24B,GANDHI NAGAR, KUMBAKONAM, PIN - 612001 3 DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL NO.II 1ST FLOOR, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682036 BY ADVS. THOMAS T.VARGHESE ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM V.T.LITHA K.R.MONISHA

¶10

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

OP(DRT) NO.23 OF 2022

¶12

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

Dated this the 10^th day of October, 2022

¶15

The petitioners have approached this Court being

¶16

aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to recover the amounts due under the facilities extended to the petitioners by the respondent Bank. Though the petitioners moved the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam by filing S.A. No.10/2022, the petitioners were forced to move this Court as at that time there was no regular sitting of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam. Pursuant to the interim orders issued by this Court from time to time, the petitioners have deposited in total a sum of Rs.50 lakhs toward the loan liability. Though a payment of Rs.20 lakhs was to be made before 31.08.2022, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank that the amount has been remitted today. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that this Court had extended the time for

¶17

¶18

OP(DRT) NO.23 OF 2022

¶19

payment till today.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank points out that the present liability even after giving credit to the amounts paid by the petitioners would be approximately Rs.4.25 crores and the Bank may be permitted to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have a credible proposal for settlement of the liabilities by disposing of certain assets which are mortgaged to the respondent Bank. It is submitted that the petitioners will file a detailed proposal before the authorised officer of the respondent Bank which may be directed to be considered by a competent authority of the respondent Bank.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners have paid a sum of Rs.50 lakhs

¶23

¶24

OP(DRT) NO.23 OF 2022

¶25

pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, I am of the view that one opportunity can be granted to the petitioners to approach the Bank for settlement of liabilities by filing a suitable proposal. Therefore, this original petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to file a suitable proposal before the authorised officer of the respondent Bank. A competent authority of the respondent Bank shall consider such proposal after affording to the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, provided such proposal is filed within a period of ten days from today. If such proposal is filed within a period of ten days from today, further proceedings against the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act shall stand adjourned till a decision is taken by the respondent Bank on such proposal .

¶26

The original petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

SKP/10-10

OP(DRT) NO.23 OF 2022

¶32

¶33

		APPENDIX OF OP	(DRT) 23/2022
PETITIO	NERS'	EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE COPY OF 13(2) OF THE 2ND RESPONDEN	THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION SARFAESI ACT, 2002 ISSUED BY THE T
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF 2021 ISSUED B	THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 4-8- Y THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF ISSUED BY THE	THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9-8-2021 PETITIONERS
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE COPY OF IN SA NO. 200 THE PETITIONE	THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL OF 2021 DATED 1-9-2021 ISSUED BY RS COUNSEL
EXHIBIT	P5	TRUE COPY OF SUBMITTED BY 1 & 2	THE APPLICATION DATED 28-9-2021 THE PETITIONERS TO THE RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT	P6	TRUE COPY OF BY THE 1ST RE PETITIONER	THE LETTER DATED 25-10-2021 ISSUED SPONDENT BANK TO THE 1ST
EXHIBIT	P7	TRUE COPY OF BY THE 2ND RE	THE REPLY DATED 3-11-2021 ISSUED SPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS
EXHIBIT	P8	TRUE COPY OF DATED ISSUED PETITIONERS	THE TENDER CUM AUCTION SALE NOTICE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
EXHIBIT	P9	TRUE COPY OF THE DRT -II, SALE NOTICE	THE SA NO. 10 OF 2022 FILED BEFORE ERNAKULAM CHALLENGING EXHIBIT P-8
EXHIBIT	P10	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONE	THE APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED BY RS ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P-10
EXHIBIT	P11	TRUE COPY OF	THE APPLICATION FOR URGENT HEARING
		FILED BY THE	PETITIONERS ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P-9

¶34

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶35

TRUE COPY

¶36

P.A.TO JUDGE

Sunny Kuriakose v. City Union Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny Kuriakose v. City Union Bank Limited

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

Sheetal Jain, Vs the State Tax Officer

B. Madhukumar Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Vivek Vs State of Kerala

Mahafooz Rahim Vs Idbi Bank Ltd.

Ramachandran K. Vs the Authorised Officer (Asst. General Manager), Union Bank of India

1. Reena a. K Vs Manappuram Home Finance Limited