P.P.Johnson v. Canara Bank, Rep. By Manager
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2015/2ND SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 22372 of 2015 (V) ---------------------------- PETITIONER :
--------------------- P.P. JOHNSON PROPRIETOR, M/S. ATHULYA FURNITURE & WOOD INDUSTRIES MADAKKIMALA P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENT(S) :
---------------------------- 1.
CANARA BANK, BRANCH KALPETTA WAYANAD, REPRESENTED BY MANAGER KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN - 673 121.
2.
P.D. BINEESH ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER (CMP NO. 906/15) CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN - 673 121.
3.
THE VILLAGE OFFICER MUTTIL VILLAGE KALPETTA, WAYANAD - 673 121.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.DILIP R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.T. SHEEBA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn ...2/-
WP(C).No. 22372 of 2015 (V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE SCHEDULE-B AND C.
EXT.P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.5.2015 IN SA NO. 264/15 OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.
EXT.P3 COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 8.6.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.6.2015 FROM PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6.7.2015 IN CMP NO. 906/15 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KALPETTA.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
***************************************************************************** W.P.(C) No.22372 of 2015 ****************************************************************************** Dated this the 24th day of July, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, impugning threat of dispossession under SARFAESI proceedings, has approached this Court. 2.
The petitioner has approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal in S.A.No.264/2014. Taking note of the payment of Rs.50 lakhs, the Debts Recovery Tribunal granted the petitioner to discharge the balance amount by way of instalments. It appears that the petitioner has not honoured any of the directions of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Accordingly, the Bank have taken steps to dispossess the petitioner.
3.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Bank.
4.
Since the petitioner has been already granted benefits by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the application, filed by him, it is not proper for this Court to vary the conditional order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is open for the petitioner to move the Debts Recovery Tribunal, if any indulgence is required.
W.P.(C) No.22372 of 2015 2 With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. However, to work out the relief before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, dispossession shall be deferred for a period of two weeks. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln