Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 61512
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1944 OP (DRT) NO. 272 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SA 129/2022 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/APPLICANT SURESH KUMAR P.S.
AGED 47 YEARS PROP. M/S. SREEKUMARI AND SONS S/O. PRABHAKARAN NAIR, SREE SADANAM, ALAVIL P.O., KANNUR DIST, PIN - 670008 BY ADV C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT CANARA BANK PUTHIYATHERU BRANCH, KANNUR REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER., PIN – 670011 SRI. M. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR (SC)
THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2022 The petitioner owed money to the respondent-Bank. The petitioner filed S.A. No.129 of 2022 challenging the recovery proceedings initiated by the Bank. The petitioner filed an I.A. seeking to stay further proceedings including auctioning his property. The said I.A. was dismissed. The petitioner also filed an I.A. before the Debt Recovery Tribunal No.1, Ernakulam (DRT) against the proposed sale of the 2nd property as per Ext.P5. The DRT has not passed any orders in the said I.A.
2. When this OP(DRT) came up for hearing today, the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent-Bank submitted that the DRT refused to stay the sale proceedings inspite of the petitioner filing the I.A. and consequently the sale took place on 30.05.2022. Therefore, this OP(DRT) has become infructuous.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent.
4. From the pleadings and arguments raised at the Bar, it is discernible that the DRT proceeded to sell two pieces of property of the petitioner. In respect of the property which was sold on 31.03.2022, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the DRAT. The appeal is still pending. The petitioner failed to secure any interim relief in the said appeal. As regards the proceedings which culminated in the sale on 31.05.2022, the petitioner has moved an I.A. before the DRT, Ernakulam and no orders are passed therein.
5. The counsel for the petitioner would contend that the total value of the two properties would be much higher than what is due to the respondent-Bank. Therefore, the sales are to be set aside. The petitioner is ready and willing to pay the entire amount to the Bank.
6. The fact remains that the DRT has proceeded with the sale and one property was sold on 31.03.2022. The 2nd property was sold on 30.05.2022. The petitioner has invoked his remedy by filing appeal in DRAT in respect of one sale. Since the petitioner has already invoked statutory appellate remedies available to the petitioner, it would be improper for this Court to interfere in the matter through this OP(DRT).
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the OP(DRT)
is dismissed, however, granting liberty to the petitioner to prosecute the statutory remedies available to the petitioner.
sd/-
N.NAGARESH JUDGE
APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 272/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF S.A.129/2022 WITHOUT DOCUMENTS ON THE FILE OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL NO.I, ERNAKULAM Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN IA. NO. 414/2022 IN S.A. 129/2022 DRT ERNAKULAM Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.
6/4/2022 Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE DRAT CHENNAI Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SALE DT.
26/4/2022 Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA. 902/2022 ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE DRT, ERNAKULAM
