Kerala High Court
Sunitha Menon vs The Branch Manager, Union Bank Of ... on 23 June, 2022
OP (DRT) No.286/2022 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
Thursday, the 23rd day of June 2022 / 2nd Ashadha, 1944
OP (DRT) NO. 286 OF 2022
SA 7225/2022 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:
SUNITHA MENON, AGED 55 YEARS, U-67, ASWATHY GARDENS, CHITTATTUMUKKU,
CHITTATTUMUKKU.P.O, THIRUVANADHAPURAM, PIN - 695301
RESPONDENT:
1. THE BANK MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA ATTINGAL BRANCH,
AMC-17921,SHAMS COMPLEX, OPPOSITE K.S.R.T.C BUS STAND, V.V.C.ROAD,
ATTINGAL, THIRUVANADHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695101
2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, UNION BANK BHAVAN,
STATUTE, M.G.ROAD , THIRUVANADHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, UNION BANK OF INDIA
BHAVAN, STATUTE MG ROAD , THIRUVANADHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4. THE CHEIF COMPLIANCE OFFICER, COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT, 10TH FLOOR,
UNION BANK BHAVAN, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI, PIN -
400021
5. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, R.B.I REGIONAL DIRECTOR OFFICE, BAKERY
JUNCTION, P.B.NO.6507, THIRUVANDHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
OP (Debt Recovery Tribunal) praying inter alia that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed along with the OP (DRT) the
High Court be pleased to stay all further proceedings in respect of the
defects mentioned in the Exhibit P2 securitisation application filed by
the petitioner pursuant to Exhibit P1 & P2, pending disposal of original
petition.
This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of OP (DRT) and upon hearing the arguments
ofM/S. B.DIPU SACH DEEV, ARUN BABU & ARUN K.J., Advocates for the
petitioner and of STANDING COUNSEL for R1 to R4, the court passed the
following:
(p.t.o)
OP (DRT) No.286/2022 2/3
GOPINATH P., J
-------------------------------
O.P(DRT) No.286 of 2022
-------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd June, 2022
ORDER
Petitioner is an auction purchaser in respect of an item of property brought
to sale by the respondent bank. He has already deposited 25% of the auction
amount but has not remitted the balance amount on account of the fact that,
according to him, though the sale notification showed an extent of 10.10 Ares, the
actual extent of property is only 9.22 Ares. The petitioner, therefore, approached
this Court praying for a relief that he may be permitted to remit a proportionate
consideration instead of the entire consideration for 10.10 Ares.
2. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank submits that
the bank has now got the property measured with the help of the revenue
authorities and the extent of property is actually 10.10 Ares.
Having regard to the aforesaid facts, the 2nd respondent and the petitioner
may conduct a joint inspection of the property on 01.07.2022. The respondent
bank will also handover to the petitioner records to show that the actual extent of
the property is 10.10 Ares as advertised.
Post on 04.07.2022.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
okb/23.6.22
23-06-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
OP (DRT) No.286/2022 3/3
APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 286/2022
Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.8711 OF 2022 DATED
05.04.2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY SECURITISATION APPICATION FILED BEFORE DRT-
II,ERNAKULAM DATED 03.02.2022
