Disposed

Ajith Prasad, v. Union of India

Kerala HC15 Jun 2022WP(C)/3182/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala continued an interim order restraining physical dispossession for three weeks to enable the petitioner to file a securitisation application under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act at the Debts Recovery Tribunal, given the petitioner's failure to fully comply with a monitory condition.

What did the court decide?

Interim order restraining physical dispossession extended for three weeks to enable petitioner to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17.

Ajith Prasad, Vs Union of India — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 3182 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

AJITH PRASAD,

¶8

AGED 58 YEARS,S/O.ACHUTHAN, JYOTHIS, KATTIKATTU PARAMBU, KOTTOOLI, KOZHIKODE-673 016.

¶9

BY ADV E.A.BIJUMON

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶12

2 THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF REGULATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI400 005. 3 M/S. TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD., 1ST FLOOR, PLOT NO.3, AUTO PLAZA ROAD NO.3, OPP.TIMES OF INDIA, BANJARA HILLS, HYDRABAD500 034. BY ADVS. SHRI.C.DINESH, CGC R.RENJITH, SC FOR R3 ANJU MOHAN ANISH JOSE ANTONY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P(C).3182/22

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed challenging proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as the Securitisation Act).

¶17

This Court had granted conditional interim orders from time to time. It is submitted that despite the order dated 10.05.2022 to remit a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- on or before 10.06.2022, the said condition has not been complied with in full. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner states that, if sufficient time is granted, the petitioner will be able to discharge the liability, I am of the view that it is for the petitioner to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal with a securitisation application under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act. In order to enable the petitioner to do so, the interim order granted by this Court against physical dispossession shall continue for a period of three weeks. It is made clear that the tribunal will be free to pass orders in accordance with law without taking note of any of the proceedings of this Court.

¶18

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶21

okb/15.6.22

¶22

//True copy// PS to Judge

¶23

W.P(C).3182/22

¶24

¶25

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3182/2022

¶26

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶27

Exhibit	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD 01.10.2019 - 31.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 13(2) NOTICE UNDER SECURITIZATION ACT 2002 DATED 21.05.2021.
Exhibit	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 29.07.2021.
Exhibit	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COVID TEST REPORT DATED 12.01.2022.
Exhibit	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RULE 8(1) NOTICE DATED 11.08.29021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 22.11.2021 UNDER RULE 8(6) ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 10.01.2022 UNDER RULE 8(6) ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONERS NOTICE DATED 25.01.2022.

Ajith Prasad, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajith Prasad, v. Union of India

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

Sulaiman.T.B., Vs Authorised Officer

Reshma Poulin Vs Kerala Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Muhammedkutty T. K. Vs Nilambur Co-Operative Urban Bank

Jose K.Joseph, Vs the National Faceless Appeal Centre

V.Muraleedharan Vs Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd.

Radhakrishnan Anathakrishnan Vs Axis Bank Ltd.