Kerala High Court
M/S.Varkey Retail Ventures (P) Ltd vs The Authorised Officer on 22 May, 2013
Author: P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
OP (DRT).No. 104 of 2014 (O)
-----------------------------
OA.NO.194/2012 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
----------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
1. M/S.VARKEY RETAIL VENTURES (P) LTD.,
REGD.OFFICE 32/174, CIVIL LINES ROAD,
PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR P.I.DENNIS.
2. P.I.DENNIS,S/O.LATE ITTICHAN,
VARKEY BHAVAN, LOURDEPURAM P.O.,
EAST FORT, TRISSUR-680 005.
3. TOBBY ALAPPAT, S/O.LATE ITTICHAN,
VARKEY BHAVAN, LOURDEPURAM P.O.,
EAST FORT, TRISSUR-680 005.
4. SEBY ALAPPAT,S/O.LATE ITTICHAN,
VARKEY BHAVAN, LOURDEPURAM P.O.,
EAST FORT, TRISSUR-680 005.
5. THRESSIAMMA ITTICHAN,W/O.LATE ITTICHAN,
VARKEY BHAVAN, LOURDEPURAM P.O.,
EAST FORT, TRISSUR-680 005.
6. ROSAMMA VARKEY,W/O.LATE P.I VARKEY,
ALAPPAT PALATHINKAL, VII/448/1,
ANCHERRY P.O., TRISSUR-680 006.
7. VINUVRKEY,
S/O.LATE P.IVARKEY, ALAPPAT PALATHINKAL,
VII/448/1,ANCHERRY P.O.,TRISSUR-680 006.
BY ADV. SRI.C.S.ULLAS
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE,
SOUTH INDIA BANK BUILDING, RAJAGIRI VALLEY P.O.,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.
sts 2/-
-2-
OP(DRT).NO.104/2014
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGD. OFFICE
SOUTH INDIAN BANK HOUSE, MISSION QUARTERS,
TRISSUR-680 001.
3. THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,
(FOR KERALA & LAKSHWADEEP), 5TH FLOOR,
K.S.H.BUILDING,PANAMPILLY NAGAR,
KOCHI-682 036.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI,SENIOR ADVOCATE
ADVS. SRI.K.S.DILIP
SRI.SAJU N.A.
SMT.G.LEKHA
SMT.P.J.FLONY
SMT.A.I.HAYARUNNISA
SRI.K.K.JOHN,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK
THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 18-12-2014, ALONG WITH OP(DRT)NO. 105/2014 & OP(DRT).NO. 106/2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
OP (DRT).No. 104 of 2014 (O)
-----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(DRT) 1567/2013 DATED 22.5.2013.
P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(DRT) 1568/2013 DATED 22.5.2013.
P3: COPY OF IA 15742/2014 IN OP(DRT) 1567/2013.
P4: COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.11.2014 IN IA 15742/2014 IN OP(DRT) 1567/2014.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO.JUDGE
sts
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
O.P. (DRT) Nos. 104, 105 and
106 of 2014
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 18th day of December, 2014
JUDGMENT
The common grievance expressed in these three matters, referring to S.A.s filed by the petitioners and O.A.s filed by the respondent Bank, is in connection with the financial transactions in between. The prayer is to direct the Tribunal to consider and finalise the S.As. along with concerned O.As.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the issue involved is substantially same, and same is the position with regard to the nature of evidence to be let in. As such, if the proceedings are permitted to be proceeded by way of parallel course of action, that will be detrimental to the rights and interests of all concerned. It is in the said circumstances, that the petitioners have approached this Court seeking for a direction to have both the proceedings to be considered and dealt with together.
3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits, with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit O.P.(DRT) No. 104 of 2014 and connected cases : 2 : filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in OP DRT No.104 of 2014, that there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the submission made from the part of the petitioners, who are chronic defaulters and the issue is pending for quite a long time. The total liability to be cleared to the Bank is nearly 22 crores. It is stated that the Bank had approached this Court earlier because of the delay in finalising the concerned S.A. by filing O.P(DRT) Nos. 1567 and 1568 of 2013. The said original petitions were disposed of, as per Exts.P1 and P2 verdicts, whereby the Tribunal was directed to finalise S.A. within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Because of some unforeseen circumstances, the proceedings could not be finalized. After retirement of the concerned presiding officer, another presiding officer assumed the charge much later. Pointing out the facts and circumstances, the Bank had approached this Court by filing interlocutory application seeking for extension of time, which was allowed and the Tribunal was directed to finalize the matter on or before 30.11.2014. Subsequently, the petitioner approached this Court seeking for extension of time and the said I.A. was considered and allowed, granting extension of time till 31.12.2014. It is pointed out that O.P.(DRT) No. 104 of 2014 and connected cases : 3 : the Bank has already completed the arguments. It is at this point of time, that the petitioners have chosen to approach this Court seeking to club S.As and O.As and to have the proceedings finalized simultaneously, which is nothing but to protract the proceedings, submits the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.
4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the petitioners did not have any such grievance earlier, in spite of the fact that the matters were pending for quite a long. No such grievance was projected even when the I.A. for extension of time was filed by the petitioner, whereby extension was granted till 31.12.2014. Eventhough cause of action may be common and the pleadings and evidence to be let in may be similar, the course of action available to the Bank, under the relevant provisions of the SARFAESI Act is different from the course of action to be pursued by way of O.A. The Apex has already made it clear that different course of action can be simultaneously pursued by the Bank, which may include the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act as well. This Court finds support from the decision rendered by the Apex Court as reported in AIR 2007 SC 712 [M/s Transcore Vs. Union of India and Another]. In the above circumstances, O.P.(DRT) No. 104 of 2014 and connected cases : 4 : this Court finds that the idea and understanding of the petitioners is quite wrong and misconceived. The Original petitions fail and they dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd