R.RAJAN, RAJAS, NJEKKAD v. INDIAN BANK

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): -----------------------------

INDIAN BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KOLLAM BEACH, KOLLAM.

THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, OFFICE OF THE RECOVERY OFFICER, KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP, 8TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI.

M/S SHAMSUDHEEN & CO.REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER A.NOUSHAD, CASHEW EXPORTERS, NEAR KALLUPALAM, POST OFFICE ROAD, KOLLAM.

AISHA BEEVI, MANADATH MANZIL, THOTTUMUGHAMKARAYIL, ALUVA EAST VILLA.

SEGU MAJEED, LAILA MANZIL, A.S.ROAD, ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN , SC., FOR R1 SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN FOR R3 SRI.S.SUJITH FOR R3 SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN FOR R3 SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, ALONG WITH WPC. NO.35615 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).Nos.30443/2008-Y & 35615/2008-M = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner in WP(C)35615/2008 is a debtor to the first respondent bank. That debt has culminated in a recovery order under the RDB Act. Petitioners in WP(C).30443/2008 claim that they are purchasers of certain items of immovable properties from the debtors. The purchasers are not entitled to make any claim for any relief against the bank. The debtors are also not entitled to the benefit of one time settlement scheme in terms of the RDB guidelines since the DRT has already passed the recovery order (See X-Calibre Knives (P) Limited and another v. State Bank of India [2005 (10) SCC 265].However, the bank has to consider the request of the petitioners for receiving payments and releasing the properties, which is a matter to be under the WP(C)30443 & 35615/08 -: 2 :- commercial wisdom of the bank. If any among the petitioners in these matters pays amounts, that would, obviously, be under distress and hence, he would be entitled to move against any among the private respondents other than the bank for compensation, restitution etc. in accordance with law. If any controversy survives regarding the total outstandings, that is a matter for determination by the Recovery Officer in terms of the recovery certificate issued by the DRT as modified by any superior authority or court. The question of release of documents would also be in terms of law. Other reliefs are rejected. These writ petitions are ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/