Kerala High Court
K. Subramanian vs The Uco Bank, Represented By Its Branch ... on 26 December, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
Tuesday, the 26th day of December 2023 / 5th Pousha, 1945
OP (DRT) NO. 565 OF 2023
(AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN SA NO. 210/2023 OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II,
ERNAKULAM)
PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANT IN SA 210 OF 2023
1. K. SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. KUTTAPANIKKAN KESAVAN, MYTHRI
(PUTHUVIL VEEDU), MYLAKKAD P.O., KOLLAM , PIN - 691571
2. B. SHEELA, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O. K. SUBRAMANIAN, MYTHRI (PUTHUVIL
VEEDU), MYLAKKAD P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691571
3. SHAJIKUMAR S., AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. LATE SUKUMARAN NAIR, BEENA
NIVAS, PLAKKAD, ADICHANALLOOR P.O, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691573
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT IN SA 210 OF 2023
1. THE UCO BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KOLLAM BRANCH
KHAISE BUILDING, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, UCO BANK, KOLLAM BRANCH. KHAISE BUILDING,
BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
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 proceedings of the respondent bank under
SARFAESI Act, including dispossession of the petitioners from the
property, pending disposal of this Original Petition.
This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of OP (DRT) and upon hearing the arguments
of M/S.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN, ASNA M.B. & GIRISH KUMAR V.C, Advocates for
the petitioners, the court passed the following:
BASANT BALAJI, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
O.P.(DRT). No.565 of 2023
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
Dated: 26th December, 2023
ORDER
Sri.Deepak Joy .K, Standing Counsel, takes notice of respondents 1 and
2.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the
property was sought to be taken possession by the Commissioner, he gave
an undertaking that he would pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- before
12.12.2023; Rs.6,00,000/- before 19.12.2023, Rs.5,00,000/- before
31.12.2023; and Rs.25,00,000/- by 15.01.2024. More than Rs 60,00,000/-
is already deposited in the loan account. The petitioners have filed this
writ petition to direct the DRT-II, Ernakulam, to consider and dispose of the
Ext.P3 stay petition within a time period.
3. Learned standing counsel for the Bank vehemently opposes
and submits that the petitioners had earlier moved before this court by
filing W.P.(C) Nos.41626 and 24332 of 2022 and a common judgment was
passed, directing the petitioners to remit an amount of Rs.65,00,000/-, but
the petitioners did not remit the entire amount and remitted only
Rs.35,00,000/-. Thereafter, another writ petitions were filed as
W.P.(C)Nos.14247 and 17275 of 2023, which are pending as of
today. When physical possession was sought to be taken on 12.12.2023,
he gave the undertaking mentioned above that he would pay the amounts
within a time frame. Though he paid the 1st instalment amounting to
Rs.4,00,000/-, he did not pay the 2nd instalment. He argues that the
petitioners are filing writ petitions one after another, seeking to delay the
recovery of the amounts due to the bank. Therefore, no leniency can be
granted to the petitioners as they have already undertaken before the
Commissioner, and the DRT has also taken note of the request of the
petitioners to pay the amounts as undertaken.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners as well as the standing
counsel for the Bank.
5. It is true that the amounts are due from the petitioners to the
tune of Rupees One Crore and more. As undertaken by the petitioners he
has paid Rs.4,00,000/- by 12.12.2023. The next instalment of Rs.6,00,000/-
was paid on 19.12.2023, and the 3rd instalment of Rs.5,00,000/- is to be
paid on or before 31.12.2023. While disposing of the amendment
application, the DRT has taken note of the undertaking made by the
petitioners and allowed the petitioners to move the bank for a grant of
further time for payment as undertaken before the Commissioner. It was
ordered that if the petitioners comply with the terms of payment, coercive
steps shall not be taken till the next posting. The petitioners had already
moved the DRT with I.A. No.4021 of 2023 for a stay of dispossession, but
the same is adjourned for filing counter by the Bank. The application is
posted to 02.01.2024. The 1st petitioner is a contractor who has
undertaken work for the Electricity Board, Railways, and Health
Department and is anticipating payments for the work done. Therefore, I
am of the opinion that breathing time can be given to the petitioners for
payment of the instalments as agreed before the Commissioner.
Therefore, the petitioners are directed to pay an amount of
Rs.11,00,000/- on or before 12.01.2024; till such time, all coercive
proceedings, including taking possession, shall be deferred. If the
petitioners do not pay the amount on or before 12.01.2024, as directed
above, the Bank is free to proceed with taking physical possession in
accordance with the law.
Post the case on 16.01.2024.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI,
JUDGE
ss
