M/S NKS SPICEX vs AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE CANARA BANK LIMITED

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27633

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
M/S NKS SPICEX – Appellant
Versus
AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE CANARA BANK LIMITED – Respondent
OP (DRT) NO. 144 OF 2026 | SA NO.195 OF 2026

Important Points

High Court directs DRT to expeditiously decide stay petitions in SARFAESI proceedings.

Subject

Civil - Debt Recovery

Act Referred

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

Headnote

First Paragraph: Under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), petitioners filed Securitisation Application (Ext.P1) with stay petitions (Exts.P2 and P5) before Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam. Stay petitions could not be heard due to tribunal holiday on scheduled date. Court found petitioners' application pending without adjudication. Second Paragraph: Issues framed: Whether stay petitions require expeditious disposal amid conflicting submissions on prior deposit undertaking. Ratio decidendi: Matter pending before tribunal warrants direction for prompt consideration without prejudice to parties' contentions. Last Paragraph: Original petition disposed directing Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam to consider and pass orders on stay petitions within three weeks.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. SIDHARTH O., SRI. SUSANTH SHAJI, SRI. ALBIN A. JOSEPH, SMT. NEKHA VARGHESE
For the Respondents: SRI. PAULOCHAN ANTONY - SC

Table of Content
1. direct expeditious tribunal consideration of stay applications (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioners have filed Ext.P1 Securitisation Application along with Exts.P2 and P5 stay petitions before the Debts Recovery Tribunal – I, Ernakulam. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that, on 01.04.2026 - the date on which the stay petitions were posted - the Debts Recovery Tribunal - I, Ernakulam was on leave on account of which the petitioners were not able to obtain orders on the stay petitions.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, however, would state that on the earlier posting before this Court, the petitioners had undertaken to make a deposit of Rs.10 Lakhs, which the petitioners have not complied with.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners disputes these submissions.

In any event, since the matter is pending consideration before the Debts Recovery Tribunal – I, Ernakulam, I dispose of the original petition directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal – I, Ernakulam to consider and pass orders on Exts.P2 and P5, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from today.