Madras High Court
E.Ramkumar vs M/S.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd on 27 November, 2023
C.R.P(MD)No.1303 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
C.R.P(MD)No.1303 of 2019
and
C.M.P(MD)No.7134 of 2019
E.Ramkumar :Petitioner
.vs.
1.M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,
Asset Reconstruction Division,
1st Floor, Ceebros Centre,
No.39, Montieth Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
2.M/s.Getwell Hospital Pvt Ltd.,
Castle Wood, Tirunelveli-627 001.
3.Mr.A.Ramakrishnan
4.Mr.R.Sundararaman
5.Mr.S.Shanmugam
6.Mrs.Pazhanimuthu Gmathi Nachiar
7.The Sub-Registrar,
Joint I Sub Registration Office,
Tirunelveli,
St.Marks Road,
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1303 of 2019
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli-627 002. : Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 05.04.2019 made in
M.A.No.210 of 2018 passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery
Tribunal-II, Chennai pertaining to raising the order of attachment dated
21.03.2017 made in DRC No.149 of 2015 in DRC No.34 of 2004 in
O.A.No.1134 of 2000 before the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery
Tribunal-II, Chennai by allowing the petitioner.
For Petitioner :Mr.K.R.Laxman
For Respondents :No appearance
ORDER
********
[Judgment of the Court was made by RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.]
The fifth defendant in O.A.No.1134 of 2000 has filed an
application in DRC No.34 of 2004 before the Recovery Officer, Debts
Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, wherein, the personal property of one of
the Director of the Certificate Debtor was attached and to raise the
attachment, the appellant filed M.A.No.210 of 2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. After hearing the appellant, we find that at the instance of
M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.., O.A.No.1134 of 2000 was filed for
recovery of money due to the Bank, based upon the loan, which was
declared as Non Performing Asset. The said application was allowed.
Subsequently, the Kotak Mahindra Bank was merged with the ICICI
Bank. They have filed DRC No.149 of 2015 for attachment of the
property belonging to the present petitioner. In the said application, it is
contended that the mortgaged property was not sufficient enough to
realise the amount and therefore, the guarantor property has to be taken
into consideration. The said application was allowed and the property of
the present petitioner was attached. The petitioner has filed an
application in M.A.No.210 of 2018 to raise the attachment and the said
application was dismissed by order dated 05.04.2019. Aggrieved against
the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision. The appeal
provision is available under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and
Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Instead of approaching the DRT, the petitioner has
filed the present revision before this Court.
3. Be that as it may, the main ground that was agitated before us
that the petitioner is the one of the Director of the M/s.Getwell Hospital
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Pvt., Ltd., and the property is a personal property and hence, the personal
property of the Director cannot be attached for the debts of the Private
Limited Co., and another point is that the attachment proceedings has
been initiated after the period of 12 years of limitation. The mortgaged
property subject matter of the above O.A.No.1134 of 2000 though
attached, went for public auction twice, and the same is still available in
the hands of the Bank, whether, under such circumstances, the action of
the bank in bringing the person property of the Director is justify or not.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner for
sometime, we are satisfied that the present application is filed under Rule
66 of the Income Tax Act,1961 and orders have been passed therein.
There is an appeal provision available under Section 30 of the Recovery
of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. This Civil Revision Petition appears
to have been filed when the Judicial Officer for the said Tribunal is
vacant. Now, the Officer is available to decide the issue and hence, on
the point of availability of specific statutory appeal remedy under
Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, we are
not inclined to exercise the power under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Taking into consideration the points that were raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, we deem it fit to say that the time taken
for the litigation of this revision is excluded for the purpose of limitation
and 30 days time is granted for presentation of the application. Till such
time, status quo shall be maintained.
6. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.K.R.,J.] [P.B.B.,J.]
27.11.2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
NCC:Yes/No
AM
To
The Recovery Officer,
Debts Recovery Tribunal-II,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.
AND
P.B.BALAJI,J.
am
27.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
