Madras High Court
V.Elangovan vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd on 10 March, 2022
CRP.No.2417/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
CRP.No.2417 of 2021
& CMP.No.18377 of 2021
1.V.Elangovan
2.E.Venkateswari ... Petitioners
Versus
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,
Mr.Arun Kumar. ... Respondent
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil
Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 07.08.2021 of the X Assistant
Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai made in E.A.SR.No.8152/2021,
E.P.No.4586/2012 in ACP.No.4022 of 2012.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Chandra Sudan
For Respondent : No appearance
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.2417/2021
ORDER
The Revision Petitioners are the Judgment Debtors, who obtained some loan
from the respondent/financial institution. Since the Revision Petitioners
defaulted in the payment of the loan dues, the respondent resorted to
Arbitration Proceedings and an Award came to be passed. To execute that
Award, an Execution Petition was laid in E.P.No.4586 of 2022. Before the
Execution Court, the Revision Petitioner/Judgment Debtor took out an
Application in E.A.Sr.No.8152 of 2021 for ascertaining the authority of the
person representing the respondent. This was not taken on record by the
Execution Court and was rejected Vide the impugned order dated 07.08.2021.
This is now in challenge.
2.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that for more
than 30 occasions none represented the respondent before the Execution
Court and suddenly some counsel had entered appearance and filed vakalat.
However, it could not be ascertained from the vakalat, who has filed the
same. In other words, the name of the said authorized person of the
respondent has not been mentioned in the vakalat.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.2417/2021
3.The learned counsel further submitted that the Revision
Petitioners/Judgment Debtors have paid around Rs.4,00,000/- towards
repayment of the debt dues to the respondent, that he continues to be their
recovery agent to the respondent and that they are now bothered both by the
recovery agent as well as by the Execution proceedings. He also submitted
that he is keen to go for a negotiated settlement of the dispute and that the
problem the Judgment Debtor/Revision Petitioners face is that, even if they
have to go for a negotiated settlement of the dispute, they do not know whom
to contact.
4.The respondent have been served with the notice but, none appeared. In
deed, the respondent's name is also printed in the cause-list.
5.Inasmuch as the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has indicated
their keenness to settle the matter through negotiation and since none
represents the respondent before the Court in this proceedings, it is only
appropriate that this Court directs the Execution Court to take an initiative to
facilitate a mediated settlement of the dispute.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.2417/2021
6.The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Tsg
To
The X Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court at Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.2417/2021
N.SESHASAYEE, J.,
Tsg
CRP.No.2417 of 2021
10.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
