Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24867
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
JYOTHILEKSHMI G – Appellant
Versus
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD – Respondent
OP (DRT) NO. 35 OF 2026 | IA 115/2026 IN SA NO.22 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SYAM J SAM, SMT.REVATHY P. MANOHARAN
For the Respondents: SHRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR
The dismissal of an interim stay application is appealable under the SARFAESI Act and should be pursued appropriately.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: This original petition is filed under the SARFAESI Act to challenge an order from a Debts Recovery Tribunal. Fact of the Case: The petitioner contests an order that dismisses an urgent application for interim stay.
Findings of Court:
The court determines that the order is appealable and should be pursued in due course.
Issues: The court examines whether the order is appropriately challenged.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasons it is the petitioner's responsibility to follow up on the application.
Result: With the afore observation, this OP (DRT) is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed to challenge an order under sarfaesi act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the dismissal of interim stay application. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court finds the order under appeal is appropriate. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2026 This original petition (DRT) is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P9 order dated 13.01.2026 in I.A.No.115/2026 in S.A.No.22/2026 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9 order dismissing I.A.No.115/2026, which was filed seeking interim stay of coercive steps including physical possession, since the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and law.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, by filing an appeal against Ext.P9 order.
5. On an anxious consideration of rival submissions and the materials on record, I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. Admittedly, Ext.P9 order is an appealable order under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act , before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. That apart, a perusal of Ext.P9 order does not show that I.A.No.115/2026 has been dismissed out rightly, but only a notice has been issued to the defendants in the application. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, it is for the petitioner to pursue I.A.No.115/2026 in S.A.No.22/2026 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, after service of notice to the defendants is complete in that application.
With the afore observation, this OP (DRT) is dismissed.
