IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH THURSDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 12TH MAGHA, 1945 OP (DRT) NO.54 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SA 783/2023 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/APPLICANT:

SHOWKATHALI. K.P AGED 52 YEARS S/O MOHAMMED, KARAPPANCHERI HOUSE, ANAPPARA, KARAKKODE PO, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN – 679333 BY ADVS.

P.SAMSUDIN A.M.BABU MILAN RACHEL MATHEW LIRA A.B.

NASRIN WAHAB RESPONDENTS:

1 THE GENERAL MANAGER MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, (KERALA BANK) MALAPPURAM HEAD OFFICE, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM., PIN - 676505

2 MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK MALAPPURAM (KERALA BANK)

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, (GENERAL MANAGER), HEAD OFFICE, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM., PIN – 676505 SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2024 The petitioner, who is facing proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, has approached this Court filing this OP(DRT) invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to call for the records leading to Ext.P3 proceedings dated 28.12.2023 and Ext.P4 proceedings dated 08.01.2024 and to set aside the same. 2. When the petitioner approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal aggrieved by the proceedings under the Securitisation Act filing SA No.783/2023, the Tribunal passed Ext.P3 interlocutory order directing that the defendant shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner subject to ₹

condition that the petitioner shall deposit 1,50,000/- with the defendant-Bank on or before 08.01.2024. Subsequently, on 08.01.2024, the Tribunal passed Ext.P4 order whereby the stay order in favour of the petitioner was vacated as the petitioner failed to pay the amount by 08.01.2024. It is discernible from the pleadings that the petitioner could not ₹

remit 1,50,000/- before 08.01.2024, though the counsel for the petitioner would urge that the amount has been later paid on 31.01.2024.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the failure of the petitioner to pay the amount by 08.01.2024, possession of the secured asset mortgaged by the petitioner was taken over by the Bank. Therefore, unless this Court interfere in the matter and pass protective orders, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury, contends the counsel for the petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

5. It is evident from the pleadings that the Tribunal had passed Ext.P3 order in favour of the petitioner on ₹

condition that the petitioner remits 1,50,000/- on or before 08.01.2024. The petitioner could not pay the amount by that date. The counsel for the petitioner would admit that on the failure of the petitioner to pay the amount, possession of the secured asset has been taken over by the Bank.

6. If that be so, there is no further proceedings as at present for this Court to interfere. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any orders of the Tribunal, the petitioner has to file appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

7. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner apprehends that a sale notice will be published soon and the petitioner’s property will be auctioned. If a sale notification is published, the petitioner can very well approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal challenging the said sale notice by amending the SA.

8. In view of the afore facts and in view of the fact that the possession of the secured asset is already taken over by the Bank, I find no reason to pass any orders in this OP (DRT).

The OP (DRT) is therefore dismissed.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 54/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM IN SA

763/2023 ALONG WITH ALL ANNEXURE ON THE FILES