SRAVANA TRADERS Vs. CHIEF MANAGER
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
K.VINOD CHANDRAN,J. -
(1.) The petitioners in the original petitions have filed the above review petitions on the ground that they were always willing and ready to redeem the mortgage and that they had attempted to do it, in accordance with the judgment passed which was frustrated by the Bank by demanding amounts far beyond that covered by the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. It is also argued that the sale of the property having been occasioned for Rs.4.7 crores; a reading of paragraphs 5 and 6 would indicate that what was intended by this Court was the payment only of the sale consideration of the property.
(2.) The judgment indicates that the petitioner had been consistently flouting the conditional orders issued and the various undertakings regularly made before, the Tribunal and before this Court. The securitistion proceedings were initiated by notice under Section 13 (2) on 01.09.2011. In the Securitisation Applications (S.A) filed against the proceedings there was initially a conditional order directing payment of Rs. 25 lakhs on or before 14.02.2012, which was not complied. After protracted litigation before the CJM's Court, the DRT and before this Court the Bank obtained possession of the property on 18.09.2014. Sale notice was published and the DRT refused to interfere with it, but all the same stayed the confirmation till the disposal of the S.A's.
(3.) Sale went through in public auction and then in the S.A's separate affidavits were filed by the respective petitioners withdrawing all contentions and undertaking to pay the amounts, latest by 30.11.2016. The S.A's were disposed of recording the undertaking. On non-compliance of the undertaking, the petitioner was again before the Tribunal with a review application. The Tribunal rejected the same finding itself to be functus officio. Original petitions were filed against the order of the Tribunal in which the judgment under review was passed. This Court found that the Tribunal could not have reviewed the order passed in the S.A's especially since the order was passed on the undertaking of the petitioners.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.