AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S Dias, J
The review petition is filed to review the judgment, to enable the review petitioners to pay the overdue amount in instalments of Rs.20,00,000/- instead of Rs.40,00,000/- as ordered by this Court.
The review petitioners have averred in the review petition that, they had filed the writ petition challenging the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( in short, ‘Act’). This Court, by judgment dated 3.7.2023, disposed of the writ petition permitting the review petitioners to pay the overdue amount with interest and cost to the respondent/Bank at the rate of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakh only), which includes the regular EMIs. However, due to reasons beyond their control, they could not pay the above-said amount. Now the review petitioners are willing to pay the overdue amount in instalment of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) per month and regularise the loan account. Hence, the review petition.
When the review petition came up for consideration on 12.10.2023, this Court, taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners that the review petitioners are willing to deposit an amount of Rs.1/- crore within three months and they would approach the respondent with a concrete proposal, directed the respondent to defer further recovery proceedings till 31.10.2023.
Heard; Sri.Abhilash.J, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners and Sri.Sadchith P.Kurup, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners submitted that pursuant to the order dated 12.10.2023, the petitioners had submitted their proposal before the respondent, but the same has been rejected. Therefore, the review petitioners propose to move the Tribunal to work out their statutory remedies. However, they may be granted a breathing time to move the Tribunal.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made across the Bar, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record to review the impugned judgment. Hence, the review petition is only to be dismissed.
Resultantly, the review petition is dismissed. Nonetheless, to afford the review petitioners a breathing time to work out their remedies, I direct the respondent/Bank to defer further coercive proceedings as against the secured asset till 20.11.2023.