Davood.P.T.S Vs. Titto Thomas - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1128447
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnJan-28-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
AppellantDavood.P.T.S
RespondentTitto Thomas
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice p.r.ramachandra menon tuesday, the28h day of january20148th magha, 1935 op (drt).no. 8 of 2014 (o) --------------------------- against the judgment in a.no. 2/2013 of debt recovery tribunal, ernakulam dated3101-2013 petitioner/petitioner: ---------------------- davood.p.t.s b5, crescent court, paniker road nadakkavu-673011 having office at davood & co., power house junction aluva - 683 101. by advs.smt.k.p.santhi smt.beena john sri.r.jayakrishnan (muthukulam) smt.k.vinaya respondents/appellants & respondents: ------------------------------------- 1. titto thomas son of the late sri.p.k.thomas kanneth house, mayilallampara p.o, puthupadi, kozhikode.2. bank of india zonal office, kaloor, kochi-682 017 3. joe k. thomas kanneth house, mayilallampara p.o, puthupadi, kozhikode. r2 by adv. sri.jawahar jose, sc, bank of india this op (debt recovery tribunal) having been finally heard on2801-2014, the court on the same day delivered the following: op (drt).no. 8 of 2014 (o) --------------------------- appendix petitioner's exhibits ------------------------ ext.p1 - true copy of appeal no.2 of2013of the debt recovery tribunal, ernakulam ext.p2 - true copy of the order dated311-2013 in appeal no.2 of2013ext.p3 - true copy of the award dated2010-2009 of the land acquisition officer. /true copy/ rka p.a. to judge. p.r. ramachandra menon j.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o.p.(drt) no. 8 of 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ dated, this the 28th day of january, 2014 judgment non finalization of the proceedings by the debt recovery tribunal - ernakulam, pursuant to ext. p1 appeal filed by the first respondent in respect of a financial transaction with the second respondent bank is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.2. the first respondent herein had borrowed some amount from the second respondent bank, creating security interest over the property concerned. pursuant to the default made, the account was declared as 'npa' and the bank proceeded with further steps under the drt act. in the course of further proceedings, property was sold in public auction and the property came to be purchased by the petitioner herein depositing a total sum of rs. 42,52,110/-. in the meanwhile the first respondent approached the drt by filing ext. p1 appeal contending that property was subject matter of land acquisition proceedings and that necessary deposit was effected before the sub court, sulthan batheri. the prayer in ext. p1 is to cause transfer of sum of rs.24,64,586.64 out of total deposit of o.p.(drt) no. 8 of 2014 :2. : rs.52,55,468/- to set off against the liability towards the second respondent bank. delay in finalizing the matter made the petitioner to approach this court by filing the present writ petition.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that challenging acquisition proceedings, another person by name c.p. soopi haji had approached this court by filing w.p.(c) no. 31671 of 2009 and that interim stay was passed against disbursement of the amount. it is also added that there is dispute between the parties with regard to the identity of the property itself, particularly as to whether acquisition is in respect of the property pointed out by the first respondent or not.4. despite completion of service of notice to the first and third respondents, they have not chosen to appear before this court by filing any counter affidavit. after hearing the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent bank, this court finds that only relief sought for to have ext. p1 filed before the drt to be considered and disposed of within a reasonable time. the learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that the said respondent does not have any objection with regard to finalization of the proceedings as sought for by the petitioner within the shortest possible time. o.p.(drt) no. 8 of 2014 :3. :5. in the above circumstances, this court does not propose to express anything with regard to the rights and liberties of the parties. the writ petition is disposed of, directing the drt to finalize ext. p1, after hearing all the parties concerned, at the earliest, at any rate within six months. sd/- p. r. ramachandra menon, (judge) kmd
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE28H DAY OF JANUARY20148TH MAGHA, 1935 OP (DRT).No. 8 of 2014 (O) --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT

IN A.NO. 2/2013 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DATED3101-2013 PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------- DAVOOD.P.T.S B5, CRESCENT COURT, PANIKER ROAD NADAKKAVU-673011 HAVING OFFICE AT DAVOOD & CO., POWER HOUSE JUNCTION ALUVA - 683 101. BY ADVS.SMT.K.P.SANTHI SMT.BEENA JOHN SRI.R.JAYAKRISHNAN (MUTHUKULAM) SMT.K.VINAYA RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS & RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. TITTO THOMAS SON OF THE LATE SRI.P.K.THOMAS KANNETH HOUSE, MAYILALLAMPARA P.O, PUTHUPADI, KOZHIKODE.

2. BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017 3. JOE K. THOMAS KANNETH HOUSE, MAYILALLAMPARA P.O, PUTHUPADI, KOZHIKODE. R2 BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE, SC, BANK OF INDIA THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2801-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (DRT).No. 8 of 2014 (O) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------ EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF APPEAL NO.2 OF2013OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

DATED311-2013 IN APPEAL NO.2 OF2013EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED2010-2009 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER. /TRUE COPY/ rka P.A. To Judge. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P.(DRT) No. 8 of 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 28th day of January, 2014 JUDGMENT

Non finalization of the proceedings by the Debt Recovery Tribunal - Ernakulam, pursuant to Ext. P1 appeal filed by the first respondent in respect of a financial transaction with the second respondent Bank is the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition.

2. The first respondent herein had borrowed some amount from the second respondent Bank, creating security interest over the property concerned. Pursuant to the default made, the account was declared as 'NPA' and the Bank proceeded with further steps under the DRT Act. In the course of further proceedings, property was sold in public auction and the property came to be purchased by the petitioner herein depositing a total sum of Rs. 42,52,110/-. In the meanwhile the first respondent approached the DRT by filing Ext. P1 appeal contending that property was subject matter of land acquisition proceedings and that necessary deposit was effected before the Sub Court, Sulthan Batheri. The prayer in Ext. P1 is to cause transfer of sum of Rs.24,64,586.64 out of total deposit of O.P.(DRT) No. 8 of 2014 :

2. : Rs.52,55,468/- to set off against the liability towards the second respondent Bank. Delay in finalizing the matter made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that challenging acquisition proceedings, another person by name C.P. Soopi Haji had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 31671 of 2009 and that interim stay was passed against disbursement of the amount. It is also added that there is dispute between the parties with regard to the identity of the property itself, particularly as to whether acquisition is in respect of the property pointed out by the first respondent or not.

4. Despite completion of service of notice to the first and third respondents, they have not chosen to appear before this Court by filing any counter affidavit. After hearing the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, this Court finds that only relief sought for to have Ext. P1 filed before the DRT to be considered and disposed of within a reasonable time. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the said respondent does not have any objection with regard to finalization of the proceedings as sought for by the petitioner within the shortest possible time. O.P.(DRT) No. 8 of 2014 :

3. :

5. In the above circumstances, this Court does not propose to express anything with regard to the rights and liberties of the parties. The Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the DRT to finalize Ext. P1, after hearing all the parties concerned, at the earliest, at any rate within six months. Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd