Allowed

Joy Francis v. Authorised Officer

Kerala HC14 Jan 2022OP (DRT)/310/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in an original petition arising from SARFAESI proceedings, directed the bank to consider a one-time settlement proposal if the petitioners deposited Rs. 30 lakhs by 15.02.2022. The Court restrained coercive actions pending this decision, clarifying that proceedings can resume if the payment is not made.

What did the court decide?

Directed bank to consider one-time settlement proposal within 15 days if petitioners deposit Rs. 30 lakhs by 15.02.2022; restrained coercive proceedings during this period.

Joy Francis Vs Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

OP (DRT) NO. 310 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 24TH POUSHA, 1943 OP (DRT) NO. 310 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SA 5/2021 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1JOY FRANCIS
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O P.M. FRANCIS, PROPRIETOR, M/SS BOOK LAND, V.K.COMPLEX,
FORT ROAD, KANNOOR-670 001, RESIDING AT PUNNATHANATHU
HOUSE, ALAVIL P.O.MANAL, KANNOOR-670 008.

¶9

2JANCY JOY,
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O JOY FRANCIS, RESIDING AT PUNNATHANATHU HOUSE, ALAVIL
P.O.MANAL, KANNOOR-670 008.
BY ADVS.
RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKKARA
S.KRISHNA KUMAR (MANGALAM)
SABAD K.H.
BERTRAND BASIL
ARUN E.A
SINI KURIAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1AUTHORISED OFFICER
CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK (CSB) LTD, NORTH KERALA ZONE, GROUND
FLOOR, C.M. MATHEW & BROTHER ARCADE, CHAKKORATHUKULAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 006.

¶12

2THE BRANCH MANAGER,
CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK (CSB) LTD, KANOOR BRANCH, VEEKEY
COMPLEX, FORT ROAD, KANNUR-670 001.
BY ADV K.ANAND

¶13

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP (DRT) NO. 310 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ======================== O.P.(DRT)No310 of 2021

¶17

------------------------------------------------

¶18

Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2022

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Though the petitioner sought for directions to restrain the coercive proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, pending disposal of SA No.5/2021 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam, during the course of argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner confined his relief to an opportunity for a one time settlement.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that an amount of Rs.2,92,82,312/- is due from the petitioners as on 31.12.2021, and that the bonafides of the petitioners is in doubt. He insists that unless the petitioners show proof of their bonafides, the respondent bank cannot consider any claim for one time settlement.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner is willing to show his bonafides to clear the entire liability, if reasonable settlement scheme is offered to them.

¶23

Having regard to the submissions made across the Bar, by the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri.Raju Vadakkekkara as well as Sri.K.Anand, learned Counsel for the respondent, I am of the view

¶24

OP (DRT) NO. 310 OF 2021

¶25

¶26

that, if the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only, on or before 15.2.2022, and submits a proposal for one time settlement, the respondent bank shall consider the same in a time bound manner. If the said proposal is found to be feasible to the respondent, the same shall also be granted, after taking a decision within a period of 15 days thereafter.

¶27

Till such a decision is taken, the respondent shall restrain themselves from proceeding with any coercive proceedings against the petitioners. It is clarified that if the petitioners fail to make the payment, along with the proposal, as directed above, the respondents shall be free to proceed in accordance with law.

¶28

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶29

sd/

¶30

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶31

jm/

¶32

OP (DRT) NO. 310 OF 2021

¶33

¶34

CORRIGENDUM DATED 08.03.2022

¶35

The words ‘writ petition’ shown in the last sentence of the
judgment shall be read as ‘original petition’.

¶36

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶37

jm/

¶38

OP (DRT) NO. 310 OF 2021

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 310/2021

¶41

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION
13(20 OF THE SARFAEST ACT DATED 16.7.2020
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION
13(40 OF THE SARFAEST ACT DATED 24.11.2020
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF S.A.NO 5/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE
HON'BLE DRT-1 ERNAKULAM WITHOUT ANNEXURES
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR ONE TIME
SETTLEMENT DATED 31.8.2021 SUBMITTED TO THE
HEAD RECOVERY & CREDIT MONITORING
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT P4 DATED 3.9.2021
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONERS HEREIN BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER
APPOINTED CMP NO 2002/2021 DATED NIL
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
20.11.2021 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
BRANCH MANAGER
Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT FROM 1.4.2017
TO 28.12.2020 SHOWING THE PAYMENT DETAILS

Joy Francis v. Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joy Francis 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

Surialekha P Vs Union Bank of India

Sabu v P Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh P a Vs State of Kerala

Aboobacker a. M Vs State of Kerala

A.K.Sasi Vs Authorised Officer

Balakrishnan Vs the Secretary