Kerala High Court
M/S. Amv Infrastructure & Properties ... vs State Bank Of India on 12 November, 2024
Author: D. K. Singh
Bench: D. K. Singh
WP(C) NO. 39931 OF 2024
1
2024:KER:84363
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 39931 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
M/S. AMV INFRASTRUCTURE & PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,
DOOR NO. 11/585 – F, FIFTH FLOOR, AMV TOWER, KUNDANOOR JUNCTION,
MARADU P.O, KOCHI,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ANIL
SHARMA.AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. JOSHY JOHN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. JOHN,
RESIDING AT KALLUKALAYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507
BY ADVS.
B.J.JOHN PRAKASH
P.PRAMEL
SOORAJ M.S.
VARSHA VIJAYAKUMAR NAIR
ANAGHA MADATH THEKKEPATTE
MANU BABY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE BANK OF INDIA,
SARB ERNAKULAM, 40/974,R.S BUILDING, M.G ROAD, ERNAKULAM,REPRESENTED BY
BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 682035
2 STATE BANK OF INDIA,
STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH, 32/1747, K 1, 7TH FLOOR, VANKARATH
TOWERS, PALARIVATTOM, BYE -PASS JUNCTION, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF
MANAGER, PIN - 682024
WP(C) NO. 39931 OF 2024
2
2024:KER:84363
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. S. LEKHSHMI-SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2024, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 39931 OF 2024
3
2024:KER:84363
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a real estate company. As per the averments made
in the writ petition, the petitioner undertakes the residential projects of
apartments and villas in and around Cochin.
2. The petitioner took a loan of Rs.3 crores from the respondent
Bank in 2015. However, the petitioner did not pay the amount in terms
of the loan agreement. Therefore, the petitioner's loan account became
NPA on 28.08.2017. Despite seven years having passed since the loan
account became NPA, the Bank is still in the process of realizing its
outstanding dues, which have resulted in an outstanding amount of
Rs.8,53,77,514/- as of today. Demand notice under Section 13(2) of the
SARFAESI Act was issued way back on 16.01.2019.
3. The Bank offered the petitioner an OTS for Rs.1,35,00,000/-.
However, after making a payment of Rs.1,35,00,000/--on 20.08.2019, the
petitioner did not pay the balance amount as per the OTS. The petitioner
WP(C) NO. 39931 OF 2024
2024:KER:84363
paid another amount of Rs.20 lakhs, and thus, he paid only
Rs.1,55,00,000/-.
3.1 The petitioner again negotiated with the Bank, and another
OTS was offered to the petitioner dated 23.10.2020 for Rs.3,74,28,637/-.
The petitioner did not make the payment in terms of the said OTS despite
accepting the proposal.
3.2 The petitioner again wanted to re-negotiate the OTS terms,
however, the Bank refused to issue fresh OTS. In view thereof, the
petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.1392/2022. This
Court dismissed the writ petition vide judgment dated 19.12.2022 in
Ext.P4. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to take recourse to
the statutory remedy.
3.3 The petitioner thereafter filed a Review Petition, R.P.
No.413/2023 seeking the review of the judgment dated 19.12.2022 passed
in W.P.(C) No.1392/2022. The aforesaid Review Petition was disposed of
by this Court vide judgment dated 30.11.2023. This Court granted liberty
WP(C) NO. 39931 OF 2024
2024:KER:84363
to the petitioner to initiate a fresh challenge on the reliefs claimed in the
writ petition alone regarding the adjustment of the amount allegedly
deposited in the non-lien account.
4. The Bank, in the meantime, filed O.A. No.576/2019 to recover
an amount of Rs.5,39,49,275/-. During the pendency of the said O.A., the
petitioner and the Bank entered into a compromise. Under the said
compromise the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.1 crore in January
2023, which would be taken as payment towards the OTS amount.
Thereafter, Rs.1 crore was required to be paid on or before December
2023, Rs.1.10 crore on or before 31.01.2024, and the balance amount of
Rs.2.50 crore on or before 29.02.2024.
4.1 After paying the entire amount as per the compromise, the
Bank was directed to return the title documents to the petitioner. The
petitioner, after paying Rs.1 crore, did not comply with the other terms
of the compromise. Instead, the petitioner filed a writ petition, W.P.(C)
No.8997/2024 before this Court with direction to the respondent Bank to
WP(C) NO. 39931 OF 2024
2024:KER:84363
adjust the amount of Rs.1,55,00,000/- paid by him against the OTS
proposal. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court vide
judgment dated 22.07.2024. This Court extracted the entire compromise
in the said judgment dated 22.07.2024. The petitioner, despite entering
into a compromise, did not comply with the terms of the compromise;
the Bank approached the DRT to grant a decree in terms of the
compromise. Considering these facts this Court dismissed the writ
petition.
5. Now the petitioner has again approached this Court with this
writ petition seeking the following prayers:
"i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction to the Respondent Bank to consider Exhibit-P9 proposal.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction to the Respondent Bank not to further proceed with measures
under the SARFAESI Act including paper publication till Exhibit-P9
proposal is considered and disposed of by the Respondent Bank after
affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner.
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction to the Respondent Bank to restore physical possession of the
WP(C) NO. 39931 OF 2024
2024:KER:84363
properties of the Petitioner.
iv. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in
the circumstances of this case including the cost of this Writ Petition."
5.1 Successive writ petitions for the same/similar cause of action
are nothing but gross abuse of the process of the Court. This Court is at
pain to find that successive writ petitions for the same cause of action
are filed in this Court. In view thereof, finding that the writ petition is a
gross abuse of the process of the Court, the same is dismissed with a cost
of Rs.1 lakh to be deposited in the Chief Minister Distress Relief fund
within fifteen days, failing which the concerned District Magistrate shall
take appropriate measures under the Revenue Recovery Act to recovery
the said amount from the petitioner.
The writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
D. K. SINGH
JUDGE
jjj
WP(C) NO. 39931 OF 2024
2024:KER:84363
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39931/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16.01.2019 ISSUED BY
THE BANK
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OTS SCHEME DATED 23.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT BANK
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER CONVEYING ACCEPTANCE OF THE OTS
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 11.11.2020
Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2022 IN W. P. (C). NO.
1392 OF 2022
Exhibit-P5 UE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2023 IN RP NO. 413 OF 2023
IN W. P. (C). NO. 1392 OF 2022
Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT JOINT COMPROMISE PETITION IN O. A. NO.
576 OF 2019
Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT BANK
Exhibit-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.07.2024 IN W. P. (C). NO.
8997 OF 2024
Exhibit-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.04.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit-P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT BANK
Exhibit-P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 03.09.2005 ISSUED BY THE
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
Exhibit-P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE OFFER LETTER OF THE PETITIONER
UNDER COVER OF EMAIL DATED 07.11.2024
