M/S.HI-TECK ENGINEERING & ECO SOLUTIONS V. UNION BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS

WP(C)/32166/2011

AI Insights

The case involves M/S Hi Teck Engineering & Eco Solutions (P) Ltd., the petitioner, who faced proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, initiated by the Union Bank of India for recovery of defaulted loan amounts. The petitioner acknowledged the liability but requested additional time to settle the dues. The bank opposed this request. After considering the arguments from both sides, the court decided to grant the petitioner additional time to fulfill their financial obligations.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 679729 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A V THOMAS; M M JASMIN; NIDHI SAM JOHNS
• Assessee Lawyers: N RAGHURAJ
• Keywords: Enforcement of Security Interest; Financial Assets; Loan default; Securitisation; Time to Pay

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32166 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S) : --------------------- M/S HI TECK ENGINEERING & ECO SOLUTIONS (P) LTD., INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, MUPPATHADAM P.O, ALUVA - 683 110. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.JOHN THOMAS. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ RESPONDENT(S) : ------------------------ 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, NODAL REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER & AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM- 682 035. 2. CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, NODAL REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 035. 3. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM MAIN BRANCH, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM- 682 035. ADVS. SRI.A.V.THOMAS FOR R1TO3 SMT.M.M.JASMIN FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.NIDHI SAM JOHNS FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AMV WPC NO.32166 OF 2011 (U) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : P.1 : COPY OF NOTICE DTD: 07.09.2011 P.2 : COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DTD: 10.10.2011 P.3 : COPY OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT. P.3(A) : COPY OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. P.3(B) : COPY OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY. P.3(C) : COPY OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KADUNGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH. P.3(D) : COPY OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KADUNGALLUR. P.4 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR NO DUES CERTIFICATES SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER. P.4(A) : COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR NO DUES CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ESI CORPORATION. P.4(B) : COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR NO DUES CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SALE TAX OFFICER, NORTH PARAVUR. P.4(C) : COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR NO DUES CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. P.5 : COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS. P.6 : COPY OF THE REPLY DTD: 14.11.2011 P.7 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD: 24.11.2011 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE AMV S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 32166 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, initiated by the respondents for recovery of loan amounts defaulted by the petitioner. The petitioner does not dispute the liability to pay or the quantum. The petitioner only seeks some time to pay off the amounts due. 2. This is opposed by the learned counsel for the bank. 3. Having heard both sides, I am of opinion that the petitioner can be given some more time to pay the amounts due. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay the amounts due within two months. If the petitioner complies with the above direction, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner fails to pay the amounts as directed above, it would be open to the respondents to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge - : 2 :- "