Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MR. MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
DELANTHABETTU KANYANA SHAUL HAMEED – Appellant
Versus
K. MOHAMMED IQBAL – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties involved and case context (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. interim order details and implications (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's decision on maintainability of appeals (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. legal principles regarding jurisdiction invoked (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 5. historical judgments referenced (Para 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. jurisdictional issues addressed (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. court's view on reliefs sought (Para 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 8. final remarks on the case outcome (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna S., J.
2. The petitioners in OP(DRT)No.350 of 2025 are the applicants in S.A.No.182 of 2025 pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal I, Ernakulam (‘the Tribunal’ for short). Similarly, the petitioners in OP(DRT)No.348 of 2025 are the applicants in S.A.No.183 of 2025 pending before the Tribunal. The petitioners in both the OP(DRT)s are borrowers and guarantors of term loans availed by them from the Union Bank of India (‘the Bank’ for short), which is the 4th respondent in both the writ appeals. When the loan accounts were classified as Non Performing Assets (‘NPA’ for short) and the bank initiated recovery steps under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcemen
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
