Kerala High Court
M/S. Yenfor Ventures Pvt. Ltd. ... vs State Bank Of India Rep. By Its Branch ... on 10 October, 2024
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
Thursday, the 10th day of October 2024 / 18th Aswina, 1946
IA.NO.7/2024 IN WA NO. 809 OF 2024
AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 05.06.2024 IN WP(C) 17013/2024 OF THIS COURT
APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER KUTTIADI BRANCH,
KUTTIADI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673508
AND ANOTHER.
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS:
1. M/S. YENFOR VENTURES PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MUHAMMAD NAJAD, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. KUNHAMMAD KUTTY, DOOR
NO.4/224C, KAM TOWER, KADEKKA CHALIL, KUTTIADY P.O, KOZHIKOD, PIN -
673508
AND 5 OTHERS.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to direct the
Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode, to render effective and adequate
Police protection to the Advocate Commissioner and Officers of the
petitioner bank to take physical possession of the secured asset
(residential House) of the respondents herein as per the orders of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode in C.M.P.No.876 of 2023.
This Application coming on for orders on 10.10.2024 upon perusing
the application and the affidavit filed in support thereof and this
court's judgment dated 14.06.2024 and order dated 05.09.2024 and upon
hearing the arguments of STANDING COUNSEL SRI.TOM K.THOMAS, Advocates for
the applicants, and ADVS.M/S. V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN, GIRISH KUMAR V.C,
M.S.ANEER & SREELAKSHMI SURESH, Advocates for Respondents 1 to 6, the
court on the same day passed the following
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE , J. &
SOPHY THOMAS,J.
----------------------------------
I.A.Nos.5, 6 and 7 of 2024 in
W.A.No.809 OF 2024
----------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of October, 2024
ORDER
A.Muhamed Mustaque,J.
This court on 05/09/2024 passed the following order:
On several occasions, time extension was
sought, but the directions has not been complied
with. We are proposing to impose a cost of
Rs.5,00,000/. The petitioner in I.A. shall show
cause why cost shall not be imposed. In the
meanwhile, the bank has also filed an application
for police protection and we also propose to grant
police protection in the matter. The petitioner shall
file show cause why police protection shall not be
granted.
Post on 09/09/2024 at 1.30 p.m.in
chambers."
2. We find that on several occasions the appellants dodged
compliance of the direction on lame excuses. It is to be noted,
when the Advocate Commissioner visited the secured assets, there
was an obstruction from the side of the appellants. On several
occasions it was represented before the court that the appellants
would settle the matter with the bank. Since the appellants failed to
comply with the directions, after the extension was granted, we
were constrained to pass the above order.
We thought imposing a cost of Rs.5 lakhs on the appellants, as
no reply was submitted to the show cause mentioned in the above
order. However taking note of the fact that the appellants are
struggling to discharge the liability, we impose a litigation cost of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on the appellants.
Accordingly, we allow the respondent bank to realise Rs.1,00,000/-
as litigation cost. The above cost shall be paid within one month.
This also can be recovered along with other debts due from the
appellants, if not paid within the time granted.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
sv
10-10-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
