SREEREJ K M Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner and his property are without jurisdiction by the operation of Sec.18 read with Sec.34 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and Sec.34 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, SARFAESI Act), and also seeking other related reliefs. Brief facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner had started a business in garments at Ottapalam. The unit was provided with financial facilities by the 5th respondent Bank to a tune of Rs.16 lakhs. The business had to face unforeseen reverses and ultimately closed down. According to the petitioner, substantial amount of money was repaid by the petitioner to the bank. However, the repayments could not be effected in accordance with the terms of the agreement and thereupon, Bank initiated multiple recovery actions. Bank initiated action under the SARFAESI Act and filed Original Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Ernakulam, and also resorted to Revenue Recovery action. Chattels in the unit are mostly sold now in recovery action. The Bank now claims an amount of Rs.30 lakhs as the amount due. It is contended, there is no such amount actually or legally due from the petitioner to the Bank. Petitioner and the Bank had once reached at a one time settlement, and petitioner paid part of the amount towards the amount settled also. But, according to the petitioner, Bank was not able to provide the key of the unit to the petitioner in terms of the settlement, and thus the settlement failed.

(3.) It is also contended that the initiation of recovery action by the Bank is legally bad in view of its invoking recovery procedures under the SARFAESI Act and as also Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. That apart, it is contended, in view of the combined operation of Sec.34 of the SARFAESI Act and Sec.18 r/w Sec.34 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the recovery actions are not maintainable. Therefore, the respondents are lacking jurisdiction to proceed with the recovery. These are the points projected by the petitioner to sustain the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.