IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 27TH ASWINA, 1944 OP (DRT) NO. 401 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTSA 181/2022 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/S:
1 M K KABEER AGED 57 YEARS S/O LATE KOCHUNNI, MUCHETHU HOUSE (PERIYAR HOUSE)
MUDICKAL P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT , PIN - 683547
2 FAJITHA KABEER AGED 51 YEARS W/O M K KABEER, MUCHETHU HOUSE (PERIYAR HOUSE)
MUDICKAL P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- , PIN - 683547 BY ADV SHARAN SHAHIER RESPONDENT/S:
FEDERAL BANK LIMITED LORD-ERNAKULAM DIVISION, FEDERAL TOWERS, GROUND FLOOR MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER AND DEPUTY VICE PRESIDENT ADV. NAGARAJ NARAYANAN (SC)
THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Petitioners have approached this Court, being aggrieved by the fact that proceedings are being initiated against the petitioners under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, to take physical possession of the secured asset at the time when S.A. No.181 of 2022 along with interlocutory application are pending consideration before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that when steps were initiated to take physical possession, the petitioner remitted Rs.25 lakhs in two instalments on 10.10.2022 and 11.10.2022. It is submitted that even after paying the aforesaid amounts, the respondent bank was not willing to wait till the matter is decided by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, before continuing with further proceedings initiated against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioners have a substantial case on merits and that the petitioners will put to serious prejudice, if proceedings are continued pending consideration of the matter before the Tribunal. It is submitted that the matter got delayed only on account of the delaying tactics adopted by the bank before the Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that the amounts due from the petitioners are huge. It is submitted that the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the bank had delayed the hearing of the Securitisation Application and the interlocutory application is not correct and that a written statement has already been filed in the matter.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioners have remitted a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty five lakhs only) in two instalments on 10.10.2022 and 11.10.2022 towards the loan liability, this Original Petition is disposed of, directing that the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam shall consider the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners in S.A No.181 of 2022 and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such time as orders are passed in the interlocutory application, further proceedings under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act shall be kept in abeyance. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and it will be open to the Tribunal to decide the matter, in accordance with law.
The Original Petition is disposed of as above.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.