Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. Balakrishnan, J
Sajan Andrews – Appellant
Versus
The South Indian Bank Ltd. – Respondent
| 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 7th 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.
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
