SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8114

NAIJO K OUSEPH – Appellant
Versus
THE REGISTRAR – Respondent


J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioners are applicants in the Securitisation Application filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam. The petitioners seek to set aside Ext.P12 and to direct the 1st respondent to number Ext.P1 SA filed in the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

2. The petitioners state that they approached the Tribunal invoking Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The Tribunal noted defects in the IA. The defect noted was that since the property which is subject matter of Section 14 proceedings is situated in Thrissur District, the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I has no jurisdiction to try the SA.

3. The petitioners answered the defect on

09.11.2023 stating that the petitioners are challenging Annexure-A2 demand notices, Annexure-A3 to A5 possession notices, Annexue-A10 affidavit and Annexure-A11 order passed under Section 14. The petitioners submitted that out of the four properties involved, three properties which are included in the impugned demand notices and possession notices are in Puthenvelikkara Village in Ernakulam District. Therefore, the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I has jurisdicti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top