The judgment reinforced the necessity for compliance with statutory timelines in tribunal proceedings to ensure justice for financial institutions.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a Public Sector Bank and is seeking directions to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam to pronounce final orders on Ext.P1 application filed by the respondent before that Tribunal.

2. The facts in the case is that, proceedings was initiated by the petitioner Bank against the respondent, under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), consequent to default committed in repayment of a loan availed by the respondent. Challenging the said proceedings, the respondent had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing S.A.No.429 of 2009. The Tribunal had issued Ext.P2 interim order imposing certain conditions on the respondent, which he had failed to comply with. When coercive steps were proceeded, the respondent again filed Ext.P5 application on which the Tribunal had issued a further interim order as evidenced from Ext.P7. According to the petitioner thereafter the matter was posted on several occasions and the interim application was finally heard on 19.2.2010. According to the petitioner the matter was taken up for pronouncing orders. It is stated that orders have not been issued on the interim application, till date, and the Tribunal has not posted the case for further consideration after 18.2.2010. It is stated that huge amount of about Rs.47,00,000/- is due from the respondent as on 30.6.2010 and due to the indefinite pendency of the securitisation application, the petitioner Bank is put to prejudice.

3. Notice issued from this Court to the respondent was returned unserved with an endorsement as 'addressee left India'. Subsequently the petitioner was directed to serve a copy of the writ petition on the counsel appearing for the respondent before the Tribunal. Advocate K.S.Dileep appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that inspite of intimation sent, there was no response from the side of the respondent.

4. It is noticed that, as per Section 17 (5) of the SARFAESI Act, the Debt Recovery Tribunal is bound to dispose of an application filed under (1), within a period of 60 days. It is evident that Ext.P1 petition was filed as early as in August 2009. It is also evident that the respondent had failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in Ext.P2 order. Under such circumstances in order to achieve ends of justice, it is only just and proper for the Debt Recovery Tribunal to have an early disposal of the matter.

5. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernaulam to take earnest steps to consider the matter expeditiously and to pass final orders either on the Interim Application No.54/2010 or on S.A.No.429/2009 itself. A decision in this regard shall be taken at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab