Kerala High Court
WP(C)/41471/2016 of M.A.ANZAR Vs UNION OF INDIA on 30 December 2016
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/9TH POUSHA, 1938 WP(C). NO.41471 OF 2016 (H) ---------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- M.A.ANZAR, AGED 54, S/O. M.ABDUL AZIZ, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. A.A.NUTTS, KP.XII/206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/9TH POUSHA, 1938
WP(C). NO.41471 OF 2016 (H)
----------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
M.A.ANZAR, AGED 54, S/O. M.ABDUL AZIZ, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. A.A.NUTTS, KP.XII/206 C, KILIKOLLOOR PO., KOLLAM-691004.
BY ADVS.SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.NIXON PAUL
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF BANKING & FINANCE, PARLIAMENT, NEW DELHI -1. PARLIAMENT, NEW DELHI -1.
2. EMPOWERED COMMITTEE, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM-695001. TRIVANDRUM-695001.
3. THE JOINT GENERAL MANAGER,
CREDIT DEPARTMENT, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, TRISSUR-686001. 4. GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, TRISSUR-686001.
5. THE CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., KOLLAM BRANCH, KOLLAM-691001. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., KOLLAM BRANCH, KOLLAM-691001.
R1 BY ADV.SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R3 TO R5 BY ADV.SRI.K.K.JOHN, SC, SOUTH INDIAN BANK
THIS WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-12-2016,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-
P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF EMPOWERED COMMITTEE DATED 29.06.2016 OFTHE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA.THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA.
P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 08.06.16 OF THE OFFICE OF MINISTERFOR FISHERIES, HARBOUR AND ENGINEERING AND CASHEW.FOR FISHERIES, HARBOUR AND ENGINEERING AND CASHEW.
P3: PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.11.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P4: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-NIL
KRJ
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.41471 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30[th] day of December, 2016
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court with an apprehensionthat steps would be taken against him, under the provisions of R.B.I.Guidelines, by the Bank to declare him as a wilful defaulter, withoutconsidering his objections. He bases his submissions on theopportunity that has been given to him under Exhibit P3 by theBank, as per which, he was asked to show cause as to why heshould not be declared as a wilful defaulter and calling upon him toplace his objections on record.
2. The petitioner says that he has preferred Exhibit P4 in response to Exhibit P3. His grievance is that Exhibit P4 has not beendisposed of and he apprehends that consequent action based onExhibit P3 would be taken by the Bank without considering ExhibitP4. He, therefore, limits his prayer for a direction to be issued to theBank to consider Exhibit P4 before any action is taken as intimatedin Exhibit P3.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and theleanred standing counsel for the respondent Bank.
WP(C).41471/16
4. I see that respondents 1 and 2 are only formal parties andnot required to be issued notice or to be heard in view of thedirections that I propose to make herein.
5. In view of the limited prayer that has been made before meby the learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem it appropriate thatthe 4[th] respondent, the Grievance Redressal Committee, be directedto take up Exhibit P4 and to dispose of the same after hearing thepetitioner. Needless to say, any action that is proposed as perExhibit P3 would be taken only after Exhibit P4 is disposed of andcommunicated to the petitioner. I record the submission of thelearned standing counsel for the respondent Bank that Exhibit P4has not reached the 4[th] respondent yet. However, taking intoaccount the need for compliance of fair procedure, I direct that thedocument Exhibit P4 produced in this writ petition be treated as arepresentation in response to Exhibit P3 by the 4[th] respondent forthe purpose of consideration and issuance of orders.
No further orders are required. Writ petition is orderedas above.
krj.4/1/2017
Sd/-Devan Ramachandran, Judge