Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13499
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
MINI ZAKIR – Appellant
Versus
M/S.PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
OP (DRT) 456 2023
ZAKEER HUSSAIN, MOHAMMED ZAMAN, K.A.SANJEETHA
The court reiterated its supervisory jurisdiction to ensure timely justice in the hearing of stay petitions in appellate proceedings.
Headnote:
Dispossession - Appeal - Article 227 - Stay Petition - The court highlighted provisions for urgent motions in the Appellate Tribunal procedures and directed the timely consideration of the stay petition under the supervisory jurisdiction of Article 227.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an appeal against the dismissal of a previous case by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, along with a stay petition to prevent dispossession from her residential property, which was not addressed promptly by the Appellate Tribunal.
Issues: Whether the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal should be directed to consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner within a reasonable time.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized its supervisory powers under Article 227 to ensure that the interests of justice are served, particularly regarding the timely consideration of stay applications in appeal processes.
Final Decision: The petitioner is permitted to move the stay petition before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal by 19.11.2023, with coercive actions deferred until then.
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 31st day of October, 2023 The petitioner states that she is the appellant and the respondents are the respondents in the appeal provisionally numbered as AIR(SA) No.1561 of 2023 on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Chennai. The petitioner filed S.A.No.40 of 2017 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam challenging the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the
1st respondent.
2. The petitioner states that the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, by the order dated 29.09.2023, dismissed S.A.No.40 of 2017 in a mechanical manner. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed a Statutory Appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The Registry of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal provisionally numbered the appeal as AIR (SA) No.1561 of 2023.
3. Along with the appeal, a stay petition was also filed against the dispossession of the petitioner from her residential property. The petitioner also filed an urgent application to post the stay petition and the appeal before the Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner is trying her best to have Exts.P5 to P8 taken up for consideration by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The appeal filed by the petitioner is not posted before the Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal so far. Now, the officials of the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that they will dispossess the petitioner from her residential building without any further notice.
4. There is no provision in the Appellate Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1994 to consider the stay petition along with the appeal on an urgent motion. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal being an Appellate Tribunal coming under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court has ample power to issue necessary directions to ensure the ends of justice wherever and whenever demanded. The petitioner seeks to issue appropriate direction to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai to consider and pass orders on the stay petition filed along with the appeal within the reasonable time frame fixed by this Court.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In view of the nature of the relief to be granted in this writ petition, the notice to respondents 2 and 3 is dispensed with.
6. It is evident from the pleadings that this Court in OP(DRT) No.403 of 2023, directed that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks for facilitating the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.
7. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has approached the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal filing Ext.P5 appeal and Ext.P6 stay petition and though those petitions are provisionally numbered, the stay petition has not been taken up. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner should be granted a reasonable time to bring up the stay petition before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
OP(DRT) is therefore disposed of permitting the petitioner to move Ext.P6 I.A before the DRAT by 19.11.2023. Any coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall stand deferred till
19.11.2023.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH JUDGE
03/03/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM (WITHOUT ANNEXURES).
Exhibit.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
09/03/2017 IN SA NO.40/2017 OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED
29/09/2023 IN SA NO.40/2017 OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
09/10/2023 IN OP(DRT) NO.403/2023.
Exhibit.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NUMBERED AS AIR (SA) NO.1561/2023 DATED 19/10/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI.
Exh
