Judicial authorities should ensure compliance with remittance orders and timely adjudication in debt recovery cases.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 16^th day of December, 2025 The petitioners were directed to remit Rs.10,38,357/- , Rs.11,23,314/- and Rs.11,23,314/- respectively on or before 30.08.2025 and the same amount on or before 30.09.2025, the 2^nd instalment by the Debt Recovery Tribunal- I, Ernakulam. Since the petitioners could not remit the first instalment, they moved an application for extension of time, which was allowed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and granted time till 17.10.2025 to pay both instalments. Thereafter, another application Ext.P4, was filed for extension of time for compliance of the order, wherein the prayer is to extend the time to pay the balance amount by one month from 01.09.2025. The said application is now rejected by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

2. A counter affidavits are filed by the respondents in all the writ petitions, where a detailed tabular column showing the amounts due and the amounts ought to have been remitted as per the interim order is specifically stated in paragraphs 6 and 7. As per the interim order, the petitioners ought to have remitted Rs. 77,41,284/- in altogether in three S.As., but what is remitted is Rs.40,00,000/-, and the balance amount to fully comply with the interim order is Rs.37,41,284/-.

3. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners are granted time till 31.12.2025 to comply with the interim orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in the stay petitions.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that the written statement is already filed and its ripe for hearing. Taking note of the fact that the written statement is filed, I direct the Debt Recovery Tribunal – I, Ernakulam, to take up the S.As itself and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible at any rate on or before 28.02.2026.

With the aforesaid directions, the Original Petitions are disposed of.