Disposed

N. Radhakrishnan v. Recovery Officer

Kerala HC1 Sept 2022OP (DRT)/357/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in an original petition directed the Recovery Officer attached to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam to consider and pass orders on two applications filed by the petitioner requesting initiation of proceedings against third parties to collect due amounts from the borrower. The petitioner claimed entitlement as a guarantor under Section 28 of the RDB Act.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Recovery Officer to consider and pass orders on Exts.P2 & P3 applications after affording opportunity of hearing to all parties within three months.

N. Radhakrishnan Vs Recovery Officer — 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

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 10 TH BHADRA, 1944
OP (DRT) NO. 357 OF 2022

¶5

DRC 84/2017 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶6

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶7

N. RADHAKRISHNAN
AGED 62 YEARS, S/O K.V. NARAYANAPILLA,
KAVISSERY HOUSE, IMURIKARA, IMURI P 0,
PERUMBAVOOR, PIN – 683 544.

¶8

BY ADV N.K.MOHANLAL

¶9

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1RECOVERY OFFICER
DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I
ERNAKULAM , PIN – 682 015.

¶11

2 AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, VYTTILA BRANCH, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 019.

¶12

3M. MOHANAN
PROPRIETOR,
M/S SREE BHADRA CONSTRUCTIONS,
37-1622 8, |AWAHAR NAGAR,
KADAVANTHRA P.O, NEAR S B I,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN – 682 020.
BY ADV ASP.KURUP

¶13

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

O.P(DRT) NO.357 OF 2022 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

After arguing on this original petition for some time, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that it would be suffice if a direction issued to the recovery officer attached to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam to consider and pass orders on Exts.P2 & P3 applications, which according to the petitioner are applications praying that the recovery officer initiate proceedings to collect amounts which are due to the 2^nd respondent borrower from third parties. It is submitted that the petitioner, who is a guarantor in respect of the loan availed by the 2^nd respondent is entitled to maintain such applications by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 28 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

¶17

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, this original petition is disposed of directing the recovery officer attached to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam to consider and pass orders on Exts.P2 & P3 applications after

¶18

O.P(DRT) NO.357 OF 2022 3

¶19

affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all parties concerned within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim and it will be open to the recovery officer decide the matter in accordance with law. The recovery officer shall also consider whether any such claim by the petitioner is maintainable.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶22

ats

¶23

O.P(DRT) NO.357 OF 2022 4

¶24

APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 357/2022

¶25

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶26

Exhibit- P1TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 7/3/2017 IN
O.A. 455/2016 OF DRT I ERNAKULAM

¶27

Exhibit- P-2 TRUE COP[Y OF I.A. 574/2018 FILED IN D R C 84/ 2017 OF DRT-I ERNAKULAM DATED 23/6/2018

¶28

Exhibit- P-3TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 12/6/2022 SUBMITTED
BEFORE RECOVERY OFFICER OF DRT-1 IN DRC
84/2017

N. Radhakrishnan v. Recovery Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Radhakrishnan v. Recovery 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

Sundaram Home Finance Limited, Vs Sub Registrar

Shajahan Kunjumarakkar Vs South Indian Bank Ltd. Represented by Authorised Officer or Chief Manager

M/S Brothers Engineering Contractors Vs Union of India

Sabu Thomas, Vs Union of India

Diwaniya Furnishings Vs the GST Council

Shaijy Shibu Vs State of Kerala