Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29069
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1943 OP (DRT) NO. 105 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SA 42/2021 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM PETITIONERS:
1 THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.
SREEKARYAM BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 017 REPRESENTED BY SENIOR MANAGER, DRT CELL, MRS.JILU HANNAH EAPEN.
2 AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014, REPRESENTED BY SENIOR MANAGER, DRT CELL, MRS.JILU HANNAH EAPEN.
BY ADVS.
K.N.SIVASANKARAN SUNIL SHANKER RESPONDENTS:
1 DR. ALLE SHIV KUMAR, PROPRIETOR, M/S.S.K.ENTERPRISES, TC 2/2700, DIVYA PRABHA, PATTOM - 695 004, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 SHIPLA SHAJI, TC 2/2700, DIVYA PRABHA, PATTOM - 695 004, MARAPPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3 R.SHAJI, TC 2/2700, DIVYA PRABHA, PATTOM - 695 004, MARAPPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner – Bank, has approached this Court asserting that Ext.P5 application has been made by them before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam (DRT), to vacate an interim order granted by it; but alleges that same has not been considered by the DRT on account of the fact that it was not sitting.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the interim order granted by the DRT was a considered one and therefore, that the afore plea of the petitioner –
Bank is unsustainable.
3. In reply, Sri.Sunil Shankar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – Bank, submitted that his client has the right to seek that Ext.P5 be heard, but that this has not been done solely because the Tribunal was not sitting.
4. When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that the legitimate rights of the litigants cannot be frustrated or defeated merely because of the reasons attributable to the Tribunal.
5. I am, therefore, of the firm view that Ext.P5 must be directed to be taken up and disposed of by the DRT within a time frame.
Resultantly, this original petition is allowed with a direction to the DRT to take up Ext.P5 interim application of the petitioners and dispose it of, after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to both sides, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy this judgment.
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE
APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 105/2021 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, ERNAKULAM IN SA OA NO. 42 OF 2021 AS UPLOADED IN THE DRT WEB SITE.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF SA NO.42 OF 2021 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES).
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS IN SA NO.42 OF 2021 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES).
EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS IN SA NO.42 OF 2021 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES).
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF MEMO FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN SA NO.42 OF 2021.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF IA NO.789 OF 2021 IN SA NO.42 OF 2021, DRT-2, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION F.NO.7/1/2021-DRT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
