Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32464
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 2ND ASWINA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 32854 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.05.2024 IN SA NO.39 OF 2024 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL- 2, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/S:
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, CREDIT RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, NARAYANA, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, NO.24-B, GANDHI NAGAR, KUMBAKONAM, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 612001 BY ADVS.
K.P.SUJESH KUMAR KEERTHI K.NARAYANAN S.SHALU JEEVAN JOY ASWIN B.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 RAMLA PANIKKAVEETIL HOUSE, CHERUTHURUTHY, PALAKKAD, PIN -
679530
2 SHOUKATHALI VARAMANGALATH THACHOTH HOUSE, KONDOORKARA, ONGALLUR II, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679313 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present writ petition has been filed impugning Ext.P6 order passed in S.A No. 39/2024 by the Debt Recovery Tribunal -2, Ernakulam.
The Ext.P6 impugned order would read as under:-
“Advocate Keerthi K. Narayanan learned counsel for the defendant is present. IA.No.2047/2024 is allowed and record is advanced. Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the bank is withdrawing the securitization measure and hence the SA may be closed giving liberty to the defendant to initiate a fresh securitization measure. A separate memo is also filed in this regard.
On the other hand the learned counsel for the applicant contended basing upon the defective notice the applicant has suffered financial loss including filing of the present case. Hence sufficient cost may be imposed on the defendant. Heard. In the above backdrop, the SA is disposed and all the securitization measures initiated by the defendant from the stage of demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI ACT is set aside by giving liberty to the defendant to proceed afresh with the SARFAESI measure from the stage of issuance of demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI ACT in accordance with the law. Since the SARFAESI measure initiated by the defendant from the stage of Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI ACT resulted in debiting of huge expenses in the account of the applicant and as the defendant opted to proceed afresh from the stage of Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI ACT, the defendant shall give proper credit of all such expenses charged in the applicant loan account before proceeding afresh under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI ACT and shall also restore the possession of the secured asset to the applicant forthwith. Further, the defendant shall compensate the applicant by returning the application fee of Rs.1,00,005/- remitted by her before the Tribunal at the time of institution of the SA and same shall be credited in a separate deposit account of the applicant or remitted to her by account payee demand draft. All pending As in the case are also closed.”
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he never made a statement that the Bank would be withdrawing the securisation measure.
3.If that is the case, the petitioner should have filed a review petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal instead of filing this writ petition. However, if the counsel for the petitioner had made such a statement or not, it is between the counsel for the petitioner and the Tribunal.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is not in a position to opine on the said issue and therefore the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to recourse to any other remedy as may be available to him, under the law.
The present writ petition is dismissed as above.
