Allowed

M/S. Panos Apparel Industries v. State Bank of India

Kerala HC7 Sept 2023WP(C)/5141/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC allowed a writ petition filed by garment industry petitioners against a bank for loan recovery. The court directed the bank's competent authority to hear the petitioners, consider recommendations from the District Industries Centre, and decide within one month, without further coercive action in the interim.

What did the court decide?

Directing the competent Authority of the 1st respondent to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, adverting to recommendations of the 4th respondent, and to pass an order within one

M/S. Panos Apparel Industries Vs State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 16TH BHADRA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 5141 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 M/S. PANOS APPAREL INDUSTRIES 52(5), OLD DESOM ROAD,THOTTAKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA , ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SREERENJINI JAYASANKAR, PIN - 683108

¶8

2 MRS.SREERENJINI JAYASANKER, AGED 42 YEARS W/O. JAYASANKER PANANGOTTU, PROPRIETOR, M/S.PANOS APPAREL INDUSTRIES RESIDING AT LAKSHMI NIVAS, KUNNUMMA EAST, KAVALAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688506

¶9

BY ADVS.
S.VAIDYANATHAN
H.SUBHALEKSHMI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMEC, 2ND FLOOR, METRO STATION BUILDING, NH BYPASS, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER (MAINTENANCE), PIN - 683101

¶12

2 THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, THOTTAKATTUKARA BRANCH, PARAVUR KAVALA JN., THOTTAKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA, PIN - 683108

¶13

3 KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, GRAMODAYA, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695001

¶14

4 DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KUNNUMPURAM, CIVIL STATION ROAD, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, PIN - 682030

¶15

5 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL, AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES NIRMAN BHAWAN, 7TH FLOOR, MOULANA AZAD ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110108 BY ADVS. T. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR SRI.JITHESH MENON

¶16

WP(C) NO. 5141 OF 2023 2

¶17

SRI.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR - SC

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 5141 OF 2023 3

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Though there are various allegations, averments and assertions made and urged by the parties against each other in this case, it is clear that none of them would help them because, what the petitioners really want is an opportunity to revive the business and to operate the loan account availed by them from the 1^st respondent.

¶22

Sri.Jayesh Mohankumar – learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent – Bank, submitted that merely because certain recommendations have been made by the 4^th respondent – District Industries Centre - as is evident from Exts.P15 and P16 - it would not be sufficient since the petitioners will have to establish their bonafides by showing that either the business is running or that can be done in the foreseeable future. He submitted that in spite of the several opportunities offered by his client, no such has been exhibited by the petitioners; and therefore, that their attempt to approach this Court through this writ petition is only to buy time and to delay the recovery proceedings initiated by his client.

¶23

Smt.H.Subhalekshmi – learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply, however, submitted that the afore allegations are wholly uncharitable because her clients certainly wants to revive the business and to run the industry; for which, recommendations in Exts.P15 and

¶24

WP(C) NO. 5141 OF 2023 4

¶25

P16 will have to be properly and dispassionately considered and given effect to by the 1^st respondent. She submitted that if this is done, then her clients would be in a position to run the industry and to service the loan account without fail.

¶26

It is thus evident from the afore rival submissions that what is now required for the 1^st respondent is to consider the claim of the petitioners properly, adverting to every recommendation made by the 4^th respondent – District Industries Centre. The implications and application of the relevant and germane Guidelines or Circulars that cover the field will also have to be taken into account, but this can be done only if the petitioners are properly heard by the competent Authority of the 1^st respondent and a decision taken thereon without any avoidable delay.

¶27

In the afore circumstances, without entering into the merits of any of the rival contentions, I allow this writ petition and direct the competent Authority of the 1^st respondent to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, adverting to Exts.P15 and P16 recommendations of the 4^th respondent; thus culminating in an appropriate order/proceedings within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶28

Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is

¶29

WP(C) NO. 5141 OF 2023 5

¶30

completed and the resultant order communicated to the petitioners, all further coercive action against them shall stand deferred, but can be continued depending upon the decision to be taken thereafter.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

MC/7.9

¶35

WP(C) NO. 5141 OF 2023 6

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5141/2023

¶37

`PETITIO` `Exhibit`	`NER EXHIB` `P1`	`ITS` `TRUE COPY OF` `12/11/2020`	`THE`	`APPLICATION DATED`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF` `23/12/2020`	`THE`	`COMMUNICATION DATED`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`LEAS`	`E DEED DATED 01/01/2021`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`THE`	`LAYOUT OF THE BUILDING`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF` `NO.PMEGP/POL`	`CIRC` `ICY/2`	`ULAR` `018-2019 DATED 21/05/2018`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF` `PORTAL OF 3R`	`STAT` `D RES`	`US OF THE LOAN IN THE` `PONDENT DATED 01/03/2021`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF` `DATED 16/04/`	`THE` `2021`	`LETTER OF ARRANGEMENT`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF` `30/11/2022`	`POST`	`AL ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF` `01/07/2021`	`LEAS`	`E AGREEMENT DATED`
`Exhibit`	`P10`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`THE`	`LAYOUT OF THE BUILDING`
`Exhibit`	`P11`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`CERT`	`IFICATE DATED 12/12/2021`
`Exhibit`	`P12`	`TRUE COPY OF` `RESPONDENT D`	`THE` `ATED`	`PORTAL STATUS OF 3RD` `04/03/2022`
`Exhibit`	`P13`	`TRUE COPY OF` `RESPONDENT D`	`COMM` `ATED`	`UNICATION OF 1ST` `21/06/2022`
`Exhibit`	`P14`	`TRUE COPY OF` `RESPONDENT D`	`COMM` `ATED`	`UNICATION OF THE 1ST` `02/07/2022`
`Exhibit`	`P15`	`TRUE COPY OF` `27/07/2022`	`MINU`	`TES OF THE MEETING DATED`
`Exhibit`	`P16`	`TRUE COPY OF` `RESPONDENT D`	`LETT` `ATED`	`ER ISSUED BY 4TH` `30/07/2022`
`Exhibit`	`P17`	`TRUE COPY OF` `DATED 23/08/`	`THE` `2022`	`MINUTES OF THE HEARING`
`Exhibit`	`P18`	`TRUE COPY OF` `SUBMITTED BY` `23/08/2022`	`THE` `THE`	`PROJECT PROPOSAL` `2ND PETITIONER DATED`
`Exhibit`	`P19`	`TRUE COPY OF` `THE 4TH RESP`	`THE` `ONDEN`	`COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY` `T DATED 05/08/2022`
`Exhibit`	`P20`	`TRUE COPY OF` `13(2) OF SAR`	`NOTI` `FAESI`	`CE ISSUED UNDER SECTION` `ACT DATED 04/11/2022`

M/S. Panos Apparel Industries v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Panos Apparel Industries v. State Bank of India

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

Dr.Meera, W/o.Harimohan Vs Dr.Harimohan K.G. S/O.K.P.Gopinathan

Rincy Ann Lalu Vs Benoy Kuruvilla

Sajana P M K. Vs Daimler Financier Services India Private Limited

Konuparamban Traders Vs the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

Jayesh Vs K.N. Prakashan

Preetha Joseph Vs K.S.Koshy