Kerala High Court
Jayesh.T.J vs The Authorized Officer on 23 May, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 18368 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
JAYESH.T.J
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O JAYASENAN, RESIDING AT THAIPARAMBATH HOUSE,
KATTUNGACHIRA. P. O, IRINJALAKKUDA VILLAGE,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680125
BY ADVS.
P.S.SUJETH
M.R.REENA
HARRY GEORGE N.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, BROADWAY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, KURUPPAM ROAD BRANCH,
P.B. NO. 8, THRISSUR THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680001
SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.18368 of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2024
The petitioner, who has availed a financial assistance
from the Punjab National Bank and who is facing coercive
proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002, has approached this Court
seeking to declare that the initiation of recovery proceedings
under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 without giving an
opportunity to prefer a statutory appeal to the petitioner, is
illegal. The petitioner seeks an interim order directing the
respondents to keep in abeyance further recovery
proceedings to enable the petitioner to prefer statutory appeal
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
2. Standing Counsel representing the respondents
submits that the order under Section 14 of the Act, 2002
sought to be challenged by the petitioner was passed in the
year 2022. The petitioner had ample time to file appeal. A
writ petition for grant of time to prefer an appeal before the
Debts Recovery Tribunal, need not be entertained.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that if the
petitioner gets a breathing time of one month, the petitioner
will be able to pay off the entire liability. According to the
petitioner, an NRI has approached the petitioner for
purchasing his property and sale agreement has already been
entered into. This Court may direct the Bank to defer any
coercive proceedings for a period of one month, so that the
petitioner can clear the entire liability.
4. Heard.
5. The order sought to be impugned by the petitioner
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, has been passed in the
year 2022. The petitioner has applied for a certified copy of
the order only very recently. In the circumstances of the case,
I am not inclined to grant time to the petitioner to approach the
Debts Recovery Tribunal. Even without grant of any time by
this Court, the petitioner can approach the Debts Recovery
Tribunal. As regards the contention of the petitioner that he is
ready to sell his property and wipe off the liability, it will be
open to the petitioner to approach the Bank producing the
sale agreement. If the Bank is convinced of the bona fides of
the petitioner in the matter of sale of property, the Bank may
take appropriate decision accordingly.
The writ petition is disposed of with the afore
observations.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
spk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18368/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P (C)
NO. 1204 OF 2022, DATED 22-09-2022 OF
THE HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit -P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27-06-
2023 ISSUED BY THE ASST. GENERAL
MANAGER OF THE RESPONDENT BANK
Exhibit -P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS SHOWING THE
AMOUNT REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit -P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED-
16-02-2023 SUBMITTED TO THE BANK
AUTHORITY.
