Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K. Babu, J
MUMTAZ ABDUL SALAM, – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, – Respondent
OP (DRT) 361 2023
SARFAESI - Recovery Proceedings - Article 227 - SARFAESI Act - Sections Related to Recovery Proceedings - The court temporarily stayed proceedings under the SARFAESI Act pending an appeal, emphasizing the right to seek statutory remedy against tribunal orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to challenge recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent bank during the pendency of certain petitions. The respondent argued that those petitions had been disposed of, while the petitioner intended to appeal the tribunal's orders.
Issues: Whether the recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act should be stayed during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principles of justice necessitated a temporary stay of recovery proceedings to allow the petitioner to exercise their statutory right of appeal.
Final Decision: The court stayed the recovery proceedings for one month.
J U D G M E N T
The prayers in this OP (DRT) filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows:-
“ i). Issue an order or direction declaring the further recovery proceedings during the pendency of the Exts. P5 & P6 petitions to be illegal in the interest of justice.
ii). Issue an Order or Direction to the Hon'ble DRT 1 to consider and pass appropriate Orders in the Exts.P5 & P6 petitions within a time limit specified by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.
iii). To call for the records leading to the status of the proceedings in the above case to check the veracity of the proceedings initiated in the above case.
iv). Issue other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grand in the circumstances of the case.”
2. The learned Counsel for the respondent bank submitted that Exts.P5 and P6 petitions have been disposed of by the Debts Recovery Tribunal – I, Ernakulam. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is intending to challenge the orders passed by the Tribunal in Exts.P5 and P6 before the DRAT, Chennai and that they have applied for getting certified copies of the orders.
Having regard to the submissions made above, the original petition is closed. However, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the SARFEASI Act shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month for facilitating the petitioner to seek statutory remedy before the Appellate Tribunal.
Sd/-
K. BABU JUDGE
EXHIBIT - P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATUS IN SA 278/2022 OF DRT-1, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT - P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DAILY ORDER DATED 10-
07-2023 IN SA 278/2022 OF THEE DRT-1, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT - P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DAILY ORDER DATED 18-
07-2023 IN SA 278/2022 OF THEE DRT-1, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT - P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DAILY ORDER DATED 08-
08-2023 IN SA 278/2022 OF THEE DRT-1, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT - P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVANCE PETITION IN SA 278/2022 OF THEE DRT-1, ERNAKULAM DATED 9/9/2023 EXHIBIT - P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESTORE THE STATUS QUO PETITION IN SA 278/2022 OF THEE DRT-
1, ERNAKULAM DATED 9/9/2023 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED:20.09.2023 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, ERNAKULAM DISMISSING IA NO.1584/2023 FILED BY THE APPLICANT/PETITIONER IN THE OP(DRT)
// True Copy // PA To Judge
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
