Back
2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35459
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J
M.P.ABDUL RAHMAN – Appellant
Versus
JM FINANCIAL ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY – Respondent
OP (DRT) 110 2015
SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM, SMT.MARIAM MATHAI, SC
The court's decision illustrates judicial discretion exercised in considering financial hardship in compliance with debt repayment orders.
Headnote:
Debt - Petition - Debt Recovery Tribunal - Section 17
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a Tribunal order rejecting an extension for payment following financial hardship after initially complying with part of the payment schedule.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted an extension, allowing the petitioner to pay the overdue amount in two installments, highlighting the need for a balanced approach considering the petitioner's financial hardship.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted an extension to comply with the Tribunal’s payment directives given their financial difficulties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the discretion allowed in cases involving financial hardship when interpreting obligations under the Tribunal’s order.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with modified payment terms for the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
This is a petition filed challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam in SA No.174 of 2015, whereby the request of the petitioner for an extension of time to comply with the directions of the Tribunal in Ext.P4 order has been rejected by the Tribunal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
1st respondent.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that by Ext.P4 order, that was passed in SA 174 of 2015, the Debt Recovery Tribunal had granted an interim stay against coercive possession, on condition that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- on or before 10.05.2015 and a further amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on or before 10.06.2015. It is not in dispute that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- pursuant to the said order of the Tribunal. He did not, however, comply with the directions of the Tribunal with regard to an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. It is for an extension of time to remit the said amount that the petitioner has approached this Court through the present OP(DRT).
On a consideration of the plea of financial hardship projected on behalf of the petitioner, I am inclined to grant the petitioner some time to comply with the requirement of payment of Rs.15,00,000/- pursuant to Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, I dispose the OP (DRT) with a direction to the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakh fifty thousand only) on or before 30.09.2015 and a further amount of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakh fifty thousand only) on or before 15.10.2015. I make it clear, that if the petitioner remits the said amount within the time mentioned in this judgment, then the same shall be treated as compliance with the directions of the Debt Recovery Tribunal in Ext.P4 order. If, on the other hand, the petitioner fails in making the payments aforementioned, then he will lose the benefit of this judgment and the respondents will be free to take coercive steps against the petitioner, from the stage at which they currently stand. On the petitioner complying with the conditions aforementioned, the Debt Recovery Tribunal shall proceed with the hearing of the Securitisation Application and endeavour to finalise the proceedings expeditiously.
