Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29135
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
GOPINATH P, J
DR. Y.M.FAZIL MARICKAR, – Appellant
Versus
AUTHORISED OFFICER, – Respondent
OP (DRT) 313 2021
KRISHNA PRASAD, S SINDHU S KAMATH, SWAPNA S.K., ROHINI NAIR, P.S.GEORGE
The court underscored the importance of expeditious consideration of stay petitions in the context of ongoing SARFAESI proceedings.
Headnote:
SARFAESI - Debts Recovery - SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Sections relating to Securitisation Application and stay petition | The court directed the Tribunal to consider a stay petition regarding SARFAESI proceedings, emphasizing the need to balance ongoing processes and previous payments already made by the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an original petition regarding ongoing SARFAESI Act proceedings despite a pending Securitisation Application. A stay petition was also filed, seeking a halt to the proceedings until the Tribunal could address the issues raised.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal should consider the stay petition pending before it despite ongoing proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Tribunal has the authority to decide on the stay petition based on the merits of the case while maintaining status quo until a decision is made.
Final Decision: The petition is disposed of, directing the Tribunal to consider the stay petition within two months.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2022 This O.P.(DRT) was filed at a time when there was no regular sitting before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam and with the grievance that proceedings under the SARFASEI Act, 2002, were continued against the petitioner at a time when Securitisation Application filed by the petitioner was pending consideration before the Tribunal. The Securitisation Application filed by the petitioner has subsequently been numbered by the Tribunal as S.A. No.11/2022. The petitioner has also filed a petition seeking interim stay of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the SARFASEI Act.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that this original petition may be disposed of directing the Tribunal to consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner in S.A. No.11/2022 on merits.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank has no objection in such a direction being issued.
4. Accordingly, the original petition is disposed of directing that the Tribunal shall consider and pass orders on the stay petition filed by the petitioner in S.A. No.11/2022 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. If any condition for payment is being imposed by the Tribunal for grant of stay, the Tribunal will also take note of the fact that the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.30 lakhs by virtue of the interim order issued by this Court on
10.01.2022.
I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. It is open for the Tribunal to pass such orders as it deems fit having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Till such time as orders are passed on stay application, as directed above, status quo as on today will continue.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE SKP/27-10 APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 313/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED
28.01.2021.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL S.A. (ID NO. 10415) OF
2021.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH STAY PETITION.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE
