AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sathish Ninan, J.
W.P.(C) No.8326 of 2023 is filed by the borrower for a direction to the Special Sale Officer to issue an authenticated copy of the award in ARC 1929/2017 to enable him to challenge the award. W.P.(C) No.13969/2023 is filed by the Bank seeking expeditious culmination of the recovery proceedings based on the award. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as 'the borrower' and 'the Bank'.
The borrower has produced Ext.P4 copy of award in ARC 1929/2017 of the Arbitrator, which is dated 22.01.2018. According to the petitioner, he was neither served with summons in the ARC nor was he issued with a copy of the award. It is only when he was served with Ext.P1 sale notice dated 10.02.2023 issued in enforcement of the award, did he come to know about the award. He submitted Ext.P3 application on 03.03.2023 for issuance of an authenticated copy of the award which has not yet been acted upon by the Sale Officer. On the said contention, he has filed the writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel on either side.
Along with the counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.8326/2023, the Bank has produced Ext.R5(c) evidencing service of summons on the borrower on 15.01.2018. The summons was signed by the mother of the borrower. She also acknowledged receipt of copy of the plaint. Ext.R5(f) is the copy of the demand notice dated 05.03.2019 issued by the Bank to the borrower. The receipt of the same was acknowledged by the mother of the borrower on his behalf. Ext.R5(j) is a letter dated 10.11.2022 submitted by the petitioner to the Bank requesting for a one time settlement and an instalment facility to wipe off the award debt. From the above, it is beyond cavil that the borrower had notice of the ARC and the award passed thereunder. The contention of the borrower that he was not aware of the same, lacks bona fides. As per the sale notice dated 10.02.2023, the amount recoverable as on that date was more than ` 92 lakhs. There is no reason to assume that the award was not send to the borrower and also that if a proper application is made, a certified copy of the award would not be issued to the borrower. At any rate, on the facts as noticed above, there is no ground or reason to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the borrower.
The ARC being of the year 2017 and the award being of the year 2018, necessarily the execution proceedings are to be expedited and the Special Sale Officer shall take the same to a logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible. Let the proceedings be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Thus W.P.(C).No.8326 is dismissed and W.P.(C).13969 of 2023 is allowed as above.