Introduction:

A wary purchaser of a secured asset is caught in the litigious cross fire between the borrowers and the banker. Spent his money, burnt his fingers (as he claims), and now wants to salvage the situation. The purchaser wants to withdraw from the sale and get his money back. But he faces uncertainty. After suffering an adverse order before the DRT, the Bank has filed an appeal before the DRAT, Chennai. And its disposal assumes importance for the purchaser to press his claim for refund. He wants the Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal early.

2. Now the question is, Can this Court, in Kerala, assume supervisory jurisdiction over the Appellate Tribunal in Chennai, Tamil Nadu? A question of territorial jurisdiction must be resolved.

Facts:

3. Petitioner Thomas Chacko is the fifth respondent in AIR(SR) No. 460 of 2017 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), at Chennai. Bank of India, the sixth respondent here, filed that appeal. The first and seventh respondents are the Bank officials. The respondents two to five are the borrowers.

4. When the borrowers defaulted on the loan repayment, the Bank started recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. It seems, in that process, the Bank brought the secured asset for sale, and Thomas Chacko purchased it. Then, the defaulting borrowers filed SA No 55/2007 (later renumbered as TSA No. 1198 of 2016) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Ernakulam. Thomas, too, was a party. The DRT allowed the SA. The sale in Thomas’s favour was set aside.

5. Aggrieved, the Bank filed the statutory appeal, AIR (SR) No. 460 of 2017, before the DRAT, Chennai.

6. Thomas pleads that he had parted with his hard-earned money and purchased the property on the Bank officials’ assurance. But now “that the sale has been set aside and the legal proceedings have taken their toll” on him, he is no more interested in contesting the proceedings. So he wishes to get his money back with interest and damages. After claiming the amounts from the Bank, Thomas has also filed W.P.(C)26579/2017 here. It is pending.

7. To press his claim for return of the sale consideration along with interest and damages, Thomas feels the Bank’s appeal before the DRAT is a hurdle. So he has filed this writ petition for a direction to the DRAT, Chennai: an early disposal of the appeal. For this, he invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. Given the issue’s intricacy, I have requested Sri Jacob P. Alex, the learned advocate to assist the Court. And he has readily agreed. Besides, supplementing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, Sri Alex has cited many precedents and took the Court through semantic and judicial nuances of the term “territorial jurisdiction” of the Constitutional Courts.

9. Heard Sri Pramod J Dev, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J. Harikumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, and Sri Jaisankar V. Nair, the learned Central Government Counsel, besides Sri Jacob P. Alex, the learned Amicus Curiae.

10. Indeed, the Appellate Tribunal’s situs is Chennai. So the Bank’s counsel, not the borrowers’, has raised an objection: Does this Court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this OP (DRT) under Article 227 of the Constitution. In other words, does this Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the DRAT, Chennai?

11. To resolve the jurisdictional issue, we must first examine Article 227 of the Constitution. And it reads:

227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court.-

(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may-

(a) call for returns from such courts;

(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and

(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the o