Dismissed

Padmajan v. the Authorised Officer/Chief Manager

Kerala HC22 Jan 2024OP (DRT)/27/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner sought direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to expeditiously dispose of a stay petition filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act regarding a mortgaged residential property. The High Court declined to interfere, holding that the petitioner should pursue remedies before the Tribunal and advance the hearing, and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Padmajan Vs the Authorised Officer/Chief Manager — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 2ND MAGHA, 1945

¶5

OP (DRT) NO. 27 OF 2024

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SA 667/2023 OF
DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL- 2, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER NO.1/APPLICANT NO.1:

¶8

PADMAJAN
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANAN, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE,
KUTTOOR PO, THRISSUR, PIN – 680013

¶9

BY ADVS.
S.SUNIL KUMAR (PALAKKAD)
LEKSHMI S.SEKHER
K.J.SUNIL
FEMY M.ANTONY

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER FEDERAL BANK LTD, LCRD THRISSUR DIVISION, 1ST FLOOR, FEDERAL TOWERS, T.B.ROAD, S.T.NAGAR, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680001

¶12

2 THE BRANCH MANAGER FEDERAL BANK, SAKTHAN BRANCH, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001

¶13

3 JALAJA PADMAJAN AGED 52 YEARS W/O.PADMAJAN, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE, KUTTOOR.PO, THRISSUR, PIN – 680013

¶14

OP (DRT) NO.27 of 2024

¶15

¶16

4REGHUVARAN
AGED 75 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANAN,KOTTAKKAL HOUSE,
KUTTOOR.PO, THRISSUR, PIN - 680013
5REMADEVI
AGED 62 YEARS
W/O.REGHUVARAN, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE,
KUTTOOR.PO, THRISSUR, PIN – 680013

¶17

SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, R1 AND R2

¶18

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

OP (DRT) NO.27 of 2024

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2024

¶23

The petitioner has approached this Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam to hear Ext.P3 Stay Petition and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law.

¶24

The petitioner states that he has availed two

¶25

financial advances / loans from the Federal Bank. The petitioner’s only residential building was mortgaged with the respondents for availing the loans. Due to Covid-19 pandemic and consequent lock-down, the petitioner could not repay the loan amounts promptly. The petitioner was afflicted with other health issues also during the time.

¶26

The respondents approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thrissur under Section 14 of the

¶27

¶28

OP (DRT) NO.27 of 2024

¶29

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and has obtained an order appointing Advocate Commissioner to assist the Bank to take over the residential property of the petitioner, which stands mortgaged. The Advocate Commissioner has issued Ext.P1 notice to the petitioner.

¶30

The petitioner submits that the petitioner has approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam filing Ext.P2 Securitisation Application. The petitioner has also filed Ext.P3 Stay Petition. Unless Exts.P2 and P3 applications are considered by the Tribunal, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury. If the Advocate Commissioner proceeds to take over physical possession of the residential property of the petitioner before the Tribunal considers the Stay Petition, it would result in showing the petitioner discretion. Therefore, this Court shall direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal to dispose of the Stay Petition

¶31

¶32

OP (DRT) NO.27 of 2024

¶33

expeditiously and to restrain the respondents from proceeding against the petitioner till the Stay Petition is considered, contends the counsel for the petitioner.

¶34

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the Bank and resisted the Original Petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that the total outstanding amount payable by the petitioner is more than ₹1,10,00,000/- as on 04.10.2023. The Stay Petition and Securitisation Application preferred by the petitioner stand posted before the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 29.02.2024.

¶35

As the petitioner has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal filing SA and IA for stay, it is for the petitioner to pursue his remedies before the Tribunal. If the respondents are proceeding against the petitioner, the petitioner has the option to advance the hearing of his SA and IA before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

¶36

¶37

OP (DRT) NO.27 of 2024

¶38

In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to give

¶39

any mandatory direction in this case. The OP (DRT) is dismissed.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

spk

OP (DRT) NO.27 of 2024

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 27/2024

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶48

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION
NOTICE IN CRLMP NO-7880/2023 ON THE
FILES OF HONBLE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR DATED
13.11.2023

¶49

Exhibit P2

¶50

Exhibit P3

¶51

TRUE COPY OF THE SECURITIZATION
APPLICATION ALONG WITH ANNEXURES AS SA
NO-667/2023 FILED BEFORE THE DEBT
RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II ERNAKULAM DATED
24.11.2023

¶52

TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION AS IA
NO-3827/2023 IN SA NO-667/2023 FILED
BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II
ERNAKULAM DATED 24.11.2023

Padmajan v. the Authorised Officer/Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Padmajan v. the Authorised Officer/Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Kerala Electricals & Allied Engineering Co.Ltd., Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Ramesh P. Vs the State of Kerala

Nirmala Trust, Vs the Additional/Joint/Vdeputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Balaram Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Narayanaswamy. Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Davis P J., Vs Union of India