Ms Travancore Coffee Company Pvt Ltd vs CANARA BANK on 12 July 2021

1. 1. M/s. Travancore Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. [A Company incorporated under the Provisions of Companies Act, 1956] Having its Office at No.27, KIADB Industrial Area, Kudlur, Kushalnagar, Kodagu-571234, Rep: by its Managing Director Mr. Faiz Moosakutty

2. 2. Mr. Faiz Moosakutty S/o. Mr. A.K. Moosakutty, Residing at P.Box No.32, BIBI Plantations, Suntikoppa-571237, Kodagu District

3. 3. Mr. P.P. Pervez S/o. Mr. A.K. Moosakutty, Residing at P.Box No.32, A.K. Plantations, Suntikoppa-571237, Kodagu District

4. 4. Mrs. Sonia Faiz W/o. Mr. Faiz Moosakutty Residing at P.Box No.32, BIBI Plantations, Suntikoppa-571237, Kodagu District

**... APPLICANTS**

**AND**

2M.A. No.17/2021

The Authorized Officer Canara Bank Having its Head Office at No.112, J.C. Road, Bangalore – 560002. And having its Branch Office, Madikeri Branch, Kodava Samaja Building, Madikeri Main Road, Madikeri, Kodagu District – 571201

**... RESPONDENT**

Counsels on record/appeared for:

Applicant : Smt. Jyothi Anumolu Respondent R1 & R3 : Smt. Veena R. Rai

**ORDER ON MA**

The applicant has filed the present M.A.No.17/2021 with a prayer to grant additional six months time for payment of outstanding dues; not to take any coercive steps including recovery proceedings to direct the respondent to issue No Lien Certificate against stocking trade specifically coffee stocks belonging to its customers and further direct the respondents to cooperate with the applicant to run the business.

2. The respondent bank in the SA contended that the first applicant availed credit facility during the year 2017-2018 as they defaulted in their repayment, the bank has initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act and aggrieved by the measures the applicant has filed SA.No.377/2019 before this Tribunal and the Tribunal has disposed off the SA directing the applicant to clear liability within three months as undertaken in the affidavit.

3M.A. No.17/2021

3. However, the applicant in para 5.5 of the MA submits that the applicants could not raise the money to repay outstanding dues, and in identifying the prospective investors / for sale of the business and the order passed by this Tribunal was received by the applicant only on 28.03.2021 hence has sought for time to pay the amount.

4. The applicant has sought time contending that the due to in action of the bank in granting a No Lien Certificate over its stocks in trade the applicant was unable to carry on normal trade. Furthermore, as growing and trading of coffee being a seasonal business the applicant has sought time to regularize the account.

5. The respondent bank in their objections to the MA submits that the MA is the subject matter of S.A.No.377/2019 which is already disposed of vide order dated 08.03.2021 and now the applicant cannot urge any new averments.

6. The applicant himself had sought three months' time to close the entire liability and after undertaking to clear the liability now cannot seek for six months time to clear the entire liability. The Tribunal considering the undertaking affidavit filed by the applicant in the SA.No.377/2019 disposed off the SA on 08.03.2021 granting three months time to comply, therefore the averments urged in the MA is not maintainable.

*Heard submission of both the counsels and perused the records.*

4M.A. No.17/2021

7. The miscellaneous application filed seeking six months for payment of the outstanding amount is not maintainable in view of the fact that the applicant during the course of the argument had expressed his intention to settle the entire liability within three months and based on the affidavit filed by the applicant indicating the time frame to clear the liability, SA came to be disposed of in terms of the affidavit filed by the appellant. Hence, the order passed in SA.No.377/2019 is on consent order which cannot be interfered by this Tribunal at this stage for further extension of time.

8. If the appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by this Tribunal the remedy available to the applicant herein is to prefer a statutory appeal before the Hon'ble Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.

9. Accordingly, the present MA stands dismissed and not maintainable giving liberty for the applicant to approach the respondent bank for any amicable settlement.

*(Dictated to the Stenographer (LR), after its transcription and necessary corrections, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this day 12^th July, 2021).*

Sd/- **PRESIDING OFFICER** **DRT-2, BENGALURU**

5M.A. No.17/2021**APPENDIX****LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT**

<table border="1"><thead><tr><th><b>SI No.</b></th><th><b>Particulars</b></th><th><b>Annexure</b></th><th><b>Page No.</b></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Certified copy of the Order dated 08.03.2021</td><td>A1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Copies of the representations made by the Applicants to the Respondent Bank</td><td>A2</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Copy of the SLBC proceedings dated 30.08.2019</td><td>A3</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

**Sd/-** **PRESIDING OFFICER** **DRT-2, BENGALURU**

This image is a blank white page. It contains several small, dark specks which appear to be scanning artifacts or dust particles. There is no text, handwriting, or printed content on the page.