Madras High Court
P.K.Kerala Varma vs State Bank Of India on 6 July, 2023
WP No.8608 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.07.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
WP No.8608 of 2023
and WMP Nos.8776 and 8783 of 2023
P.K.Kerala Varma .. Petitioner
versus
State Bank of India,
Bank Road,
Kozhikode-673 001. .. Respondent
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the
order dated 09.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.101 of 2023 in AIR No.101
of 2023 by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and quash
the same.
For the Petitioner : Mr.Anil Relwani
For the Respondent : Mr.M.L.Ganesh
Stdg. Counsel
*****
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.8608 of 2023
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Mr.Anil Relwani, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.M.L.Ganesh, learned counsel for the respondent
bank.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had filed an application before the Recovery Officer calling
for the details of the amount deposited in the account of the principal
borrower. The application was partly allowed. The same was
challenged by the bank before the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery
Tribunal (DRT). The Presiding Officer, DRT set aside the said order
on the ground that the Recovery Officer cannot sit over the recovery
certificate already issued and remitted the matter to the Recovery
Officer. The Recovery Officer, thereafter, rejected the application of
the present petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the
Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal. The said appeal is
dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before
the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). The DRAT directed the
petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.28,86,597/-. According to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.8608 of 2023
learned counsel for the petitioner, when the appeal filed before the
DRAT is not against any order adjudicating the claim, the DRAT
cannot direct pre-deposit. Reliance is placed on the judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court dated 11.04.2019 passed in C.R.P. (NPD)
No.1492 of 2017 (Sree Jeya Soundharam Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.
vs. Canara Bank and Others) with other matters.
3. According to the learned counsel for the bank, the amount
outstanding against the principal borrower is more than Rs.82.95
crore as in the year 2013, whereas the amount outstanding against
the petitioner is Rs.1.20 crore and odd. However, the petitioner is
directed to deposit only Rs.20 lakhs by the DRAT.
4. The contention of the petitioner certainly could have been
considered more particularly in view of the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court dated 11.04.2019 referred to above. However, it
also needs to be considered that independent proceedings were filed
against the present petitioner for recovery. The same was decreed to
the tune of Rs.20 lakhs with interest at the rate of 15.5% p.a. The
said decree was of the year 2001. Now, the amount outstanding as
per the decree against the present petitioner is Rs.1.20 crore and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.8608 of 2023
odd. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the adjudicated
amount before the DRAT. The DRAT directed the present petitioner to
deposit an amount of Rs.20 lakhs. The petitioner did not deposit the
same; on the contrary, challenged the same before this Court by
filing W.P.No.16041 of 2002. The Division Bench of this Court under
order dated 20.06.2007 dismissed the same. The petitioner did not
comply with the order of depositing of Rs.20 lakhs, which order had
become final, inter alia, the appeal came to be dismissed for non-
deposit of the amount.
5. The proceedings of the petitioner do not appear to be
bonafide. The same is only to wriggle out of the liability and to
prolong and protract the proceedings. As stated by the bank, the
amount due from the principal borrower is more than Rs.82 crores in
the year 2013. However, as far as the petitioner is concerned, as
independent proceedings were filed and the liability of the petitioner
is now restricted to Rs.20 lakhs with interest at 15.5% p.a. from the
year 2001, the petitioner certainly ought to have complied the earlier
order passed by the DRAT and confirmed by this Court. Today also,
the DRAT has not even directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the
amount outstanding as on date.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.8608 of 2023
6. As the conduct of the petitioner does not appear to be bona
fide, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. No farthing has
been deposited by the petitioner though the order of pre-deposit in
the appeal filed by the petitioner earlier was passed on or about
March, 2002. Even after 20 years, the petitioner is now directed to
deposit only Rs.28 lakhs and odd. In view of the factual matrix, we
are not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
The writ petition as such is disposed of. There will be no order
as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
06.07.2023
Index : yes/no
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sra
To:
State Bank of India,
Bank Road,
Kozhikode-673 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.8608 of 2023
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(sra)
WP No.8608 of 2023
06.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
