Kerala High Court
T.P. Madhusudhana Kaimal vs Canara Bank on 7 March, 2011
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/4TH PHALGUNA 1933
WP(C).No. 4348 of 2012 (P)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
T.P. MADHUSUDHANA KAIMAL,
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,
KRISHNA KRIPA, SOUTH ARYAD,
AVALOOKUNNU (PO), ALLEPPEY, PIN- 688 006.
BY ADV. SRI.M.P. SUMOD.
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. CANARA BANK,
MULLAKKAL BRANCH,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN- 688 011,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
CANARA BANK, MULLAKKAL BRANCH,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN -688 011.
BY ADV. MR.K.S. DILIP.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 4348 of 2012 (P)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION PUBLISHED IN KERALA
KAUMUDI DATED 7.3.2011.
EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 13.2.2012 ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2011 PASSED BY DEBT
RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.4348 OF 2012(P)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rdday of February, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is facing SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank. Against the proceedings petitioner filed S.A.No.539/2011 before the DRT, Ernakulam. In that Second Appeal, DRT passed an interim order of stay subject to the condition that petitioner makes three payment of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/-. Despite enlargement of time granted petitioner made only initial payment of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore DRT passed Ext.P6 order vacating the interim order. As a result, Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court has issued notice to the petitioner calling upon him to surrender vacant possession of the property. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
WPC.No.4348 /2012 :2 :
2. True petitioner has committed not only default in paying the amount as per the loan agreement but in complying with the interim order passed by the DRT. In such circumstances, the order passed by the DRT vacating its stay order cannot be said to be illegal. However, fact remains that consequent on such an order petitioner will be divested of his residential property. In such circumstance subject to stringent conditions, I am inclined to give the petitioner yet another opportunity to comply with the conditions of the DRT. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions.
3. Out of Rs.2,75,000/- payable by the petitioner in terms of the interim order passed by the DRT, Rs.1 lakhs shall be paid by him on 28.2.1020 and the balance Rs.1,75,000/- shall be paid on 31.3.2012. Subject to payment as above coercive action initiated against the property shall be deferred. I also record the submission of the counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the event payment is not made as above, vacant possession of the building in question will be surrendered to the Advocate WPC.No.4348 /2012 :3 : Commissioner on 2.4.2012.
4. It is directed that if the petitioner makes payment as above, DRT will treat the payment as one in compliance of its interim order and will proceed to consider S.A. No. 539/2011 in accordance with law.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/