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.A.Ramakrishnan
4.R.Sundararaman
5.S.Shanmugam
6.Pazhanimuthu Gomathi Nachiar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.R.P(MD)No.1303 of 2019
7.The Sub-Registrar,
Joint I Sub Registration Office,
Tirunelveli,
St.Marks Road,
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
(*)“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 from the date of reecipt of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
original copy of the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal.”
6. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(AD II)
(*)Corrected as per the order of this court dated
18.12.2023 made in CRP(MD)No.1303 of 2019.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS II)
// True Copy //
/01/2024
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
AM
To
The Recovery Officer,
Debts Recovery Tribunal-II,
Chennai.
COPY TO:
1 THE SECTION OFFICER,
ER SECTION,
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
MADURAI.
(Return the original order by keeping a photocopy with necessary endorsement)
2 THE SECTION OFFICER,
VR SECTION,
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. (2 Copies)
+1 CC to Mr.K.R.Laxman, Advocate SR.No.57141
+1 CC to Mr.K.R.Laxman, Advocate SR.No.53509
27.11.2023
MK/02.01.2024 6P 7C
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
