Jurisdiction for securitisation proceedings pertains to the location of the secured asset and cannot solely depend on the location of the immediate threat.

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 jurisdiction to try the SA.

4. The Registrar of the DRT, however, held that the DRT is not having jurisdiction to accept an application which falls within the jurisdiction of Thrissur District. The Registrar therefore declined to register the application under Rule 4(4)

of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

5. The petitioners filed Ext.P10 Appeal No.7/2023 against the declining order. The petitioners also filed OP(DRT) No.483/2023 before this Court. This Court disposed of the said OP(DRT) as per Ext.P11 judgment directing the DRT to pass and issue orders on Ext.P10 within a period of two weeks.

6. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court, the Debts Recovery Tribunal considered the issue and held that the provisions of Section 17 (1A) of the Act, 2002 provides that an application under (1) shall be filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part arises, or where the secured asset is located, or the Branch or any other office of a Bank or financial institution is maintaining an account in which debt claimed is outstanding for the time being. The Tribunal therefore held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the SA and directed the petitioners to present the same before the appropriate forum having jurisdiction to try the same, within a period of three weeks. It is aggrieved by the said order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam in Appeal No.7/23 that the petitioners have approached this Court.

7. The petitioners seek to set aside Ext.P9 and to direct the 1st respondent to number Ext.P1 SA filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. By Ext.P12, the Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal has upheld the defects/objections pointed out by the Registrar to register the SA filed by the petitioners. The Presiding Officer of the DRT has rejected Appeal No.7/2023 filed by the petitioners holding that as per Section 17 (1A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 , an application under (1) shall be filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction (a) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; (b) where the secured asset is located; or (c) the branch or any other office of a Bank or financial institution is maintaining an account in which debt claimed is outstanding for the time being.

8. It is evident that the impugned Ext.P12 order has been passed by the Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal on the ground that the properties concerned in Crl.M.P. No.8060/2023 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thrissur is situated in Thrissur District, thereby implying that the appeal ought to have been filed in the DRT-II, Ernakula