Dismissed

V.I.John, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2022WP(C)/470/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two writ petitions filed by borrowers against a bank, the High Court of Kerala rejected pleas to halt recovery proceedings under SARFAESI. The Court held that the petitioners had failed to comply with interim orders from the Debts Recovery Tribunal and denied any relief, advising them to approach the bank directly for settlement.

What did the court decide?

permits no relief; leaves petitioners to approach the bank with a settlement proposal.

V.I.John, Vs State of Kerala — 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

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 20TH POUSHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 470 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1JOSEPH M.J
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O JOSEPH,
MANNUKUSUMPIL HOUSE,
PULLOORAMPARA. P.O,
THIRUVAMBADI,
KOZHIKODE DISTCRICT.
, PIN - 673603
2JIJI JOSEPH
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O JOSEPH M.J,
(PROPRIETOR OF MALABAR MIST)
MANNUKUSUMPIL HOUSE,
PULLOORAMPARA. P.O, THIRUVAMBADI,
KOZHIKODE DISTCRICT., PIN - 673603
BY ADVS.
SALIM V.S.
A.M.FOUSI

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1AUTHORIZED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER (SARFAESI)
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
MATHA TOWERS, THAMARASSERY,
KOZHIKODE DISTCRICT, PIN - 673573
2THE MANAGER
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
PULLOORAMPARA BRANCH,
PULLOORAMPARA P.O,
THIRUVAMBADI,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT .
, PIN - 673603

¶10

OTHER PRESENT:

¶11

ADV. SUNIL SHANKAR (SC)

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶14

PRESENT

¶15

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶16

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 20TH POUSHA, 1944

¶17

WP(C) NO. 795 OF 2023

¶18

PETITIONERS:

¶19

1JIJI JOSEPH
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O JOSEPH M.J,
(PROPRIETOR OF MALABAR MIST)
MANNUKUSUMPIL HOUSE,
PULLOORAMPARA. P.O,
THIRUVAMBADI,
KOZHIKODE DISTCRICT ., PIN - 673603
2JOSEPH M.J
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O JOSEPH,
MANNUKUSUMPIL HOUSE,
PULLOORAMPARA. P.O,
THIRUVAMBADI,
KOZHIKODE DISTCRICT, PIN - 673603
BY ADVS.
SALIM V.S.
A.M.FOUSI

¶20

RESPONDENTS:

¶21

1.AUTHORIZED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
MATHA TOWERS, THAMARASSERY,
KOZHIKODE DISTCRICT., PIN - 673573
2THE MANAGER
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
PULLOORAMPARA BRANCH,
PULLOORAMPARA P.O,
THIRUVAMBADI,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
, PIN - 673603

¶22

OTHER PRESENT:

¶23

ADV. SUNIL SHANKAR (SC)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Dated this the 10^th day of January, 2023

¶27

The petitioners in these cases have availed business loans

¶28

from the respondent bank. On default being committed, proceedings were initiated against the petitioners under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

¶29

The petitioners approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal and obtained interim orders subject to compliance with certain conditions. At the instance the petitioners in respect of the one among the Securitization Applications, namely S.A.No. 339/2022 this court by judgment in O.P.(DRT) No. 382/2022 had extended the time for payment. It is not disputed that apart from making part payment of Rs.10,00,000/- no amount was paid even within the extended time granted by this court in the judgment in O.P. (DRT) No. 382/2022. In the connected Securitization Application namely S.A. No. 475/2022 no amount has been paid as per the interim order of the Tribunal.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in

¶31

these cases would submit that the petitioners have very valuable properties, which are worth nearly Rs.50 crores, in all. It is submitted that the liability of the bank is only approximately Rs. 4 crores and the petitioners have offered to settle the liability by paying Rs.3.5 crores as one time settlement. It is submitted that a further amount of Rs.20 lakhs will be paid by 22.02.2023 and the entire balance amount will be paid on or before 20.03.2023. It is submitted that the petitioners have identified purchasers for some of the items of properties and therefore, the petitioners will be in a position to clear the liability within the time as aforesaid.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank vehemently opposes the grant of any relief. He points out the circumstances leading to the issuance of orders by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and states that despite an extension of time in one of the matters, the petitioners failed to comply with the condition of deposit. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the petitioners are clearly not entitled to any further relief from this court. It is submitted that the liability is huge. If the recovery proceedings are further delayed, the bank will be put to

¶33

serious prejudice and hardship. It is submitted that even if the proposal of the petitioners is accepted and if the petitioners fail to make payment by 20.02.2023 or by 20.03.2023 as indicated above, the recovery proceedings will have to be postponed to the next financial year and this will cause serious prejudice to the respondent bank.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank in these cases, I am of the opinion that there is considerable merit in the contention taken by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank that considering the fact that the petitioners failed to comply with the terms of the interim order issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and also considering the fact that the liabilities are huge, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief from this court. If the petitioners have any credible proposal for settlement of the liability, it is for them to approach the competent authority of the respondent bank and convince the bank that they will be in a position to clear the liability. Leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue their claim

¶35

for settlement of liability, these Writ Petitions are dismissed.

¶36

If the petitioners approach the bank with a proposal by 11.00 am on 11.01.2023, the bank shall take a decision on the proposal and communicate the same to the petitioners without undue delay.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

RMV

W.P. (C) Nos. 470 & 795 of 2023

¶42

..7..

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 470/2023

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE 19.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONERS.
Exhibit-P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2022 PASSED BY
THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL -1, ERNAKULAM IN
IA/2214/2022.
Exhibit-P3TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SEEKING EXTENSION OF
TIME SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶45

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶46

W.P. (C) Nos. 470 & 795 of 2023

¶47

..8..

¶48

	`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 795/2023`
`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit-P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 10.08.2022` `ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE` `PETITIONERS`
`Exhibit-P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.08.2022 PASSED BY` `THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL -1, ERNAKULAM(DRT-1) IN` `IA/1714/2022 DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF DRT-1 ,` `ERNAKULAM.`
`Exhibit-P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER DATED 20.09.2022 IN` `IA NO.1975/2022 IN SA 399/2022 PASSED BY THE DEBT` `RECOVERY TRIBUNAL -1, ERNAKULAM (DRT-1) DOWNLOADED` `FROM THE WEBSITE OF DRT-1 , ERNAKULAM.`
`Exhibit-P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.09.2022 PASSED BY` `HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN OP (DRT)` `NO.382/2022.`
`Exhibit-P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SEEKING EXTENSION OF` `TIME SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.`

¶49

TRUE COPY

¶50

P.A.TO JUDGE

V.I.John, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.I.John, v. State of Kerala

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

Biju P. Vs Dr. Balpreeth Singh IAS

Akshay P.Aji Vs State of Kerala

Mr. Haridas C.N Vs State of Kerala

Abish Jose Vs Registrar of Companies (Roc), Ernakulam

Ajith Balan Vs State of Kerala

Al-Yasar Arafath, Vs State of Kerala