Dismissed

M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. The Recovery officer

Madras HC1 Jul 2021WP/13612/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ directing the Recovery Officer to release sale consideration. The Court noted the petitioner is a secured creditor with an outstanding order from the Recovery Officer but held the petition was not maintainable as alternative remedies were available.

What did the court decide?

The petition disposed of without any order as to costs. No order was made directing the release of sale consideration.

M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs The Recovery officer — Money Laundering | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.07.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.No.13612 of 2021

¶7

M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd Registered office at 27 BKC C 27 G Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai 400 051 Branch office at Retail Asset Reconstruction Division Chennai, Dass India Tower, II Floor, No.3, II Line Beach, Parrys Chennai 600 001

¶8

also at No.185, 2^nd Floor, Annasalai, Chennai 600 006 represented by its Authorized Officer, K.Velmurugan ... Petitioner Vs The Recovery Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal III Chennai ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the directing the Respondent to expeditiously dispose of the affidavit / petition filed by the petitioner to release the sale consideration of the secured asset to the petitioner as per the joint affidavit filed towards recovering its outstanding dues.

¶10

The petitioner claims to be a secured creditor and complains that the securities obtained by the petitioner are involved in recovery proceedings before the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in a claim by some other bank and, despite the petitioner’s application to the Recovery Officer to release the

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

securities enjoyed by the petitioner, the application has not been disposed of or appropriate action taken thereon.

¶13

For a start, the relevant bank, ICICI Bank Ltd, has not been impleaded herein. It is impermissible to go into the merits of the petitioner’s claim in the absence of ICICI Bank Ltd. At any rate, the petitioner's grievance pertains to an order dated March 18, 2021 passed by the relevant Recovery Officer on an application made by the petitioner before such officer. By such order, the Recovery Officer has granted three months’ time to the petitioner herein “to obtain appropriate orders from a Competent Authority to lay its claim” on the sale proceeds or balance sale proceeds held by such Recovery Officer. The application made by the petitioner has been kept pending by the relevant Recovery Officer.

¶14

It is open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, notwithstanding what the Recovery Officer may have observed. After all, the observation of the Recovery Officer cannot override the law of the land. At any rate, Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, provides for an appeal from an order passed by the Recovery Officer.

¶15

The petitioner says that the petitioner’s claim is founded on an arbitral award and the petitioner has submitted a copy of the arbitral award with the relevant Recovery Officer. In respect of an arbitral award, Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 clearly provides the manner of implementation thereof.

¶16

Accordingly, no order is required to be made on the present petition since there are alternative remedies available to the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶17

W.P.No.13612 of 2021 is disposed of without any order as to costs.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(co)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

tar To:

¶21

1 The Recovery Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal III Chennai

¶22

W.P.No.13612 of 2021 kv (CO) A.SK(06.07.2021)

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. The Recovery officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. The 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

K.R.Veeramani Vs The Commissioner

T S Gopalan Vs The Chairman

Traffic Dr.K.R.Ramaswamy Vs The Chief Secretary

Rangarajan Narasimhan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Traffic.Dr.K.R.Ramasamy Vs The Secretary to Government

B.Ramkumar Adithyan Vs Home Secretary