High CourtsSingle Bench(2013) 01 KL CK 0100

Abdulla and M/s. Swapna Bonemeal Company (P) Ltd. vs Union Bank of India and The Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 4 January 2013

HON’BLE JUDGES
Antony Dominic, J
CASE NUMBER
OP (DRT) . No. 58 of 2013

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 335 words

Antony Dominic, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 proclamation of sale published by the 4th respondent. Petitioner was a defaulter to respondents 1 to 3. That liability was settled mutually on payment of Rs. 65,00,000/-. Time for payment of Rs. 65,00,000/- was also agreed between the parties. Although the petitioner paid Rs. 65,00,000/-, payment was not made within the agreed time.

Therefore, after paying the amount as above, he made a request to the Bank to revive the settlement and give him the benefit of the same. Thereupon the Bank wanted the petitioner to make additional payments. Petitioner agreed to that payment also.

Accordingly, Bank made a proposal to their hierarchs seeking their sanction to revive the settlement. The complaint of the petitioner is that during the pendency of these proceedings, the 4th respondent has published Ext. P1. It is therefore he had to file this original petition.

2.

However, according to the learned senior counsel, the proposal for reviving the settlement has been accepted by the Bank by communication dated 28/12/12 and that out of Rs. 18,00,000/- additionally payable by the petitioner, he has already paid Rs. 15,00,000/-. It is also stated that the Bank has given the petitioner time till 15/1/13 for the payment of balance Rs. 3,00,000/-. From the above, therefore it is obvious that if the petitioner pays the balance Rs. 3,00,000/- before 15/1/13, the entire liability will be settled. Since the petitioner has time for payment till 15/1/13, it was premature on the part of the 4th respondent to have issued Ext. P1.

In such circumstances, I dispose of this original petition directing that further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P1 will stand stayed till 15/1/13 and if in the meanwhile, petitioner pays the balance Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) payable as per the agreed settlement, Ext. P1 will stand set aside. Otherwise the 4th respondent will be free to continue the proceedings.