Jolly Johnson vs. South Indian Bank LTD. - Kerala High Court, 07 January 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS TUE AY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941 OP (DRT).No.205 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SA 298/2019 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM PETITIONERS: 1 JOLLY JOHNSON AGED 71 YEARS W/O.LATE C.V.JOHNSON, LICENCEE ARD 170, CHIRIYANKANDATH HOUSE, ST.TOMAS LANE, ARANATTUKKARA P.O., THRISSUR-680 618. 2 FRANCIS CHEMMANUR, PROPRIETOR -FABIAN TRADING COMPANY, CHEMMANNUR HOUSE, OLARIKKARA, PULLAZHY P.O., THRISSUR-680 012. 3 JUSTIN CHEMMANNUR, PROPRIETOR -JC SOUNDS 48/364, OLARIKKARA, PULLAZHY P.O., THRISSUR-680 012. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENTS: 1 SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, THRISUSR-680 001. 2 JOSEPH.C.L., S/O.LONAPPAN, CHEMMANNUR HOUSE, LAKSHMI MILL ROAD, PULLAZHI P.O., THRISSUR-680 012. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE, SC THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP (DRT).No.205 OF 2019 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ================== OP (DRT).No.205 OF 2019 ================== Dated this the 7th day of January, 2020 JUDGMENT The prayers in the above Original Petition(DRT) filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows:- “I.Issue a Direction or order directing the 1st respondent Bank not to initiate coercive actions against petitioners and their rented premises in Building Nos.48/360 to 364 of Thrissur Corporation in Sy.141/1 of Pullazhi Village; II.Issue a Direction or Order directing the 1st respondent to give petitioners ample time and opportunity to prove their tenancy rights before the Magistrate or such other appropriate authorities; III. Issue a Direction or Order directing the 1st respondent to give Petitioners ample time till Honourable DRT Ernakulam passes Orders in pending SA 298/19 and to challenge any such orders if need be before taking any efforts to evict them from Building Nos.48/360 to 364 of Thrissur Corporation in Sy.141/1 of Pullazhi Village; IV. Grant such other or further relief as the petitioners might pray for and this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper.”

Heard Sri.Dilip Akkara learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Sunil Sankar learned counsel appearing for 1st the respondent (South Indian Bank).

In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this

OP (DRT).No.205 OF 2019 3 petition, notice to respondent no. 2 will stand dispensed with.

Today get the matter will be given consideration Sri.Sunil Sankar learned counsel appearing for 1st the respondent would submit on the basis of the instructions from his parties that the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam has already passed final orders dismissing Securitizaton Application SA.No.298/19 and therefore the prayers raised in this original petition has become infructuous. However, the counsel of the petitioner pointed out that though the petitioner has made application for grant of free copy as well as application of grant of certified copy of the impugned order said to have been passed by the DRT dismissing SA. 298/19 on 23.12.2019, copies of the same has not so far been made available to the petitioner and therefore he is deprived of his valuable right to file appeal as against impugned order before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai etc and that this court may pass appropriate orders in that regard. Taking note of the submissions on the both sides it is ordered that in case petitioner has filed application of grant of copy of the order dated 23.12.2019 dismissing SA.No.298 of 2019 on the file of DRT Ernakulam then said Tribunal will immediately take steps to grant a copy of the same to the petitioner if the application is otherwise an order.

OP (DRT).No.205 OF 2019 4 Further in the interest of justice it is ordered that further coercive steps in pursuance of the impugned order dated 23.12.2019 in SA No.298 of 2019 may be kept in abeyance for a limited period of two weeks, in order to enable the petitioner to file appeal before the Appellate Tribunal etc. It is made clear the above said directions is passed by this Court only for the purpose of presentation of the subject matter of the lis and shall not be construed in any manner as an expression of opinion on the part of this Court on the merits of the controversy. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition(DRT) stands finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE ska

OP (DRT).No.205 OF 2019 5 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER THRISSUR DATED 03.09.2019. EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF SHOP INSPECTION REPORT DATD 16.08.2019 ISSUED BY TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER CONCERNING ARD 170. EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF RENT RECEIPT DATED 02.09.2019 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT FOR SHOP ROOMS 48/360, 361 AND 362. EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF 2ND PETITIONER'S LEASE DEED ATED 12.06.2012 FOR ROOM NO.48/363. EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF 2ND PETITIONER'S GST REGISTRATION NO.32AAEPF6409LIZV DATED 01.07.2017. EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF RENT RECEIPT DATED 02.09.2019 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT FOR ROOM 48/363. EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF 3RD PETITIONER'S LEASE DEED DATED 16.08.2010 FOR ROOM NO.48/364. EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF RENT RECEIPT DATED 02.09.2019 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT FOR ROOM 48/364. EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER NARENDRAN DATED 04.06.2019 TO 2ND RESPONDENT.