Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 26493

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. Balakrishnan, J
Sajan Andrews – Appellant
Versus
The South Indian Bank Ltd. – Respondent
OP (DRT) NO. 335 OF 2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.V.H.JASMINE, SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE, SMT.REETHU JACOB
For the Respondents: SRI. K. K. JOHN, SC

High Court dismisses petition directing party to pursue remedies in functioning Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Headnote:The petitioner filed an original petition challenging interim orders in Debt Recovery Tribunal proceedings under the relevant debt recovery laws, including OA No.158 of 2018, during a period when the Tribunal was not functioning. Essential facts involve pending applications Exts. P7, P8, and P9 related to recovery certificate and property attachment. The court found that regular sittings have resumed, directing the petitioner to pursue remedies before the Tribunal. The primary issue framed is the appropriateness of High Court intervention when Tribunal functions have been restored. The court's reasoning emphasizes that the original remedy lies before the DRT itself for pending applications, rendering the petition infructuous (paras 3-4). The original petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petition filed during tribunal non-functioning with pending applications. (Para 1)
2. direct prosecution before functioning drt; petition dismissed. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)

OP(DRT)No.335 of 2021 …...................................................... Dated this the 7^th day of April, 2026 JUDGMENT This original petition was filed by the petitioner, at a time when there was no sitting in the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam, and when Exts. P7, P8 and P9 interim applications filed by him in OA No.158 of 2018 was pending.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. During the pendency of this original petition, the regular sitting in Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam had commenced and the Tribunal is now functioning for the past few years.

4. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the remedy of the petitioner is to prosecute the afore interim applications before the DRT itself, if they are pending even now.

With the afore observations, this original petition is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 26493

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMP. V. Balakrishnan, JSajan Andrews – AppellantVersusThe South Indian Bank Ltd. – RespondentOP (DRT) NO. 335 OF 2021

High Court dismisses petition directing party to pursue remedies in functioning Debt Recovery Tribunal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. Balakrishnan, J
Sajan Andrews – Appellant
Versus
The South Indian Bank Ltd. – Respondent
OP (DRT) NO. 335 OF 2021