Venu Kumar K vs Pratheesh V.B
2021 Latest Caselaw 16504 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                     PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1943
                        CON.CASE(C) NO. 972 OF 2021
    AGAINST THE VIOLATION OF JUDGMENT IN OP (DRT) 1/2021 DATED
             07.01.2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS:

    1        VENUKUMAR K., AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.P.S. KESAVAN
             NAMBOOTHIRI, NO. 103, RAMYA REGENCY, F4 CROSS 10TH MAIN
             JEEVAN BIMA NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 075.

    2        ABHA THANGOOR VASUDEVAN, AGED 54 YEARS,
             W/O. VENUKUMAR.K., NO. 103 RAMYA REGENCY, F4 CROSS 10TH
             MAIN JEEVAN BIMA NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 075.

             BY ADVS.
             D.NARENDRANATH
             M.HARISHARMA


RESPONDENTS:

    1        PRATHEESH V.B., S/O. BALAN, AGED 46 YEARS,
             AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF
             INDIA, STRESSED ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, LMS COMPOUND,
             OPPOSITE MUSEUM WESTGATE, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.

    2        J. RAJENDNDRA BABU, AGED 57 YEARS,
             S/O. K. JANARDHANAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT MEGAPODE NEST,
             NEDUMBRAM LANE, NRA-E-15A, PEROORKADA, PEROORADA P.O.,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 005, CHIEF MANGER, STATE BANK OF
             INDIA, STRESSED ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, LMS COMPOUND,
             OPPOSITE MUSEUM WASTAGE, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.

             BY ADV.SRI.S.EASWARAN


     THIS    CONTEMPT   OF   COURT    CASE     (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 972 OF 2021
                                  -2-

                            JUDGMENT

This Contempt of Court case has been filed by the

petitioners alleging that, in flagrant violation of

the directions in judgment dated 07.01.2021 in

OP(DRT)No.1 of 2021, the respondents have confirmed

sale of the subject matter property on 12.01.2021; and

thus prays that necessary action under the Contempt of

Courts Act be initiated and pursued by this Court

against them.

2. The afore submissions of the petitioners, as

argued by his learned counsel Sri.M.Harisharma, were

vehemently refuted by Sri.S.Easwaran - learned counsel

for the respondents, by relying upon the averments in

two counter affidavits filed by his clients.

3. Sri.S.Easwaran submitted that first

respondent is not a necessary party to this contempt

case; while the 2nd respondent has not committed any

contempt, because he had confirmed sale of property

only after the stay petition has been dismissed by the

Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT).

CON.CASE(C) NO. 972 OF 2021

4. Sri.S.Easwaran showed me that, as per

Annexure-A judgment, this Court permitted the Bank to

accept the bids on 11.01.2021, but ordered not to

process or confirm it for a period of 10 days

therefrom. He submitted that the bidder, however, on

his own volition, paid the amounts on 12.01.2021; but

that sale was not confirmed until 25.02.2021, when the

stay petition filed by the petitioner had been

dismissed by the DRT. He showed me Ext.R1(c), which is

a letter issued to the successful bidder on

25.02.2021, indicating that the Bank was proceeding to

confirm the sale; and added that the sale certificate

was thereafter issued, after accepting the balance

sale consideration, only on 04.03.2021, as is clear

from Ext.R1(d). The learned counsel, therefore, prayed

that this contempt case be dismissed.

5. I find substantial force in the submissions

of Sri.S.Easwaran - learned counsel appearing for the

respondents, because, if Annexures R1(c) and R1(d)

have been issued only after the stay petition had been

dismissed by the DRT, then notwithstanding the fact CON.CASE(C) NO. 972 OF 2021

that the bidder had deposited some amounts as part of

the sale consideration, in terms of Rule 9(3) of the

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, it would

not amount to any violation of the directions in the

judgment.

In the afore circumstances, leaving all

contentions of the petitioner open to be pursued, if

he is so interested, before the DRT, I close this

Contempt Case without any further orders.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv CON.CASE(C) NO. 972 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 972/2021

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP (DRT) NO. 1 OF 2021 DATED 07/01/2021.

ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY FIRST RESPONDENT A IN SA NO. 1 OF 2021 DATED 21/01/2021.

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN I.A. NO. 19 OF 2201 IN S.A. NO. 1 OF 2021 ON THE FILE OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

-2, ERNAKULAM.

ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION SERVED ON THE PETITIONERS IN I.A. NO. 19/2021 IN SA NO. 1 OF 2021.

ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 09/03/2201 HAVING NUMBER 835/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE R1(a) THE TRUE COPY OF E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 10.01.2021.

ANNEXURE R1(b) COPY OF ORDER DATED 05.02.2021 IN IA NO.19 OF 2021 IN SA NO.1 OF 2021.

ANNEXURE R1(c) THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 25.02.2021 TO THE AUCTION PURCHASER.

ANNEXURE R1(d) COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 4.3.2021.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE