Allowed

Sri Lakshmi Modern Rice Mill v. the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal

Madras HC10 Jun 2021WP(MD)/9921/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed three writ petitions challenging an Order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal which dismissed an appeal against a refusal to extend time for payment. The High Court set aside the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay the fourth installment to the bank.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 31.03.2021 are set aside; directed to pay Rs.11,67,000/- to bank by 18.06.2021 without prejudice to their rights.

Sri Lakshmi Modern Rice Mill Vs the Debts Recovery… — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD).Nos.9921, 9924 and 9925 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.06.2021 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI W.P.(MD).Nos.9921, 9924 and 9925 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.7608, 7609, 7613, 7615, 7617 & 7619 of 2021

¶5

1.Sri Lakshmi Modern Rice Mill,

¶6

Sole Proprietor, M.Sudalaimadan, S/o Mayandi Nadar,

¶7

Old No.2/1, New No.2/236, Second Street,

¶8

Idaiyardhavanai, Veerakeralam Pudur Taluk,

¶9

Tirunelveli District – 627 859,

¶10

Now Tenkasi District.

¶11

2.S.Ramesh ... Petitioners in all writ petitions

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal,

¶14

4^th Floor, Indian Bankc Circle Office, 55 Ethiraj Salai, Chennai – 600 008.

¶15

2.The Authorized Officer, Axis Bank, Loan Centre, 4^th Floor, Arcot Plaza, Old No.38, New No.165, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. ... Respondents in all writ petitions

¶16

COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned orders, dated 31.03.2021 in AIR-15/2021, AIR (SA) 38 of 2021 and AIR (SA) 39 of 2021, dismissing the Appeal by the 1 st respondent and quash the same.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.Sethuraman for Mr.V.Karthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.M.Senthil Kumar No.2 (In all petitions)

¶18

C O M M O N O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. ]

¶19

These three writ petitions have been filed by a borrower of loan from the second respondent bank, challenging the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

¶20

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

¶21

1/3

¶22

W.P.(MD).Nos.9921, 9924 and 9925 of 2021

¶23

2.We have heard Mr.Sethuraman for Mr.V.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.M.Senthil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶24

3.The order impugned before the Debt Recovery Appeallate Tribunal (in short herein after referred to as 'DRAT') was an order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (in short herein after referred to as 'DRT'), Madurai in I.A.No.1626 of 2020 in I.A.No.1099 of 2020 in S.A.No.254 of 2020.

¶25

4.The DRT by the said order dismissed the application filed by the petitioner praying for extension of time to comply with the conditional order, dated 09.10.2020. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the proceedings the three installments, which were directed to be paid by the DRT have been paid and the petitioner / borrower is ready to pay the 4^th installment namely Rs.11,67,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs and Sixty Seven Thousand only).

¶26

5.When the matter came up before the DRAT, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the pre-deposit formalities have not been complied with.

¶27

6.In our considered view, such an order could not have been passed by the DRAT because the appeal filed before it was challenging an order passed by the DRT refusing to extend the time to pay the fourth installment. Therefore, the DRAT could have tested whether the order was right and if so, should have confirmed the order or if the DRAT was of the opinion that the order calls for interference, then it could have done so. The petitioner cannot be put to a dis advantageous position in his own appeal.

¶28

7.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent bank has confirmed with the second respondent bank that the three installments have been remitted.

¶29

8.The learned counsel for the respondent bank submitted that the petitioner may be directed to pay further amounts.

¶30

9.This prayer can very well be made before the DRT, since the SARFAESI appeal in S.A.No.254 of 2020 is pending before the DRT.

¶31

10.Thus for the above reasons, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 31.03.2021 are set aside with a direction to the petitioner to pay the 4^th installment of Rs.11,67,000/- on or before 18.06.2021. The said amount shall be accepted by the second respondent bank without prejudice to their rights. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶32

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

¶33

2/3

¶34

W.P.(MD).Nos.9921, 9924 and 9925 of 2021

¶35

11.The DRT is requested to give an early date for the disposal of S.A.No.254 of 2020, subject to the availability of time.

¶36

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶37

// True Copy //

¶38

/ /2021

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶40

TM/PS

¶41

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order

¶42

may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶43

¶44

1.The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal,

¶45

4^th Floor, Indian Bankc Circle Office,

¶46

55 Ethiraj Salai, Chennai – 600 008.

¶47

+1 CC to M/s.V.KARTHIKEYAN, Advocate ( SR-19204[F] dated 11/06/2021 )

¶48

ORDER MADE IN

¶49

W.P.(MD).Nos.9921, 9924 and 9925 of 2021 10.06.2021

¶50

PM(CO)

¶51

TR(17.06.2021) 3P 3C

¶52

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

¶53

3/3

Sri Lakshmi Modern Rice Mill v. the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lakshmi Modern Rice Mill v. the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal

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

Arockia Richard.P Vs the Dist Collector

Mahalakshmi.G Vs the Chief Secretary

Kennady.P Vs the Dist.Collector

The State of Tamilnadu, Vs a.Vellasamy

Seenivasan.v.C Vs the Commissioner

Karunanithi.S Vs the Authorized Officer