Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 39939
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J
JOSE.J.MATTATHIL – Appellant
Versus
THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. – Respondent
WP(C)/2284/2020
SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR, SMT.ANITHA MENON, SHRI.MATHEW JOHN, SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI, SRI.ABY J AUGUSTINE, SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA, SC
The court confirmed borrower rights under the SARFAESI Act to seek redress in Debt Recovery Tribunal, prioritizing access to judicial remedies.
Headnote:
SARFAESI - Securitization - SARFAESI Act - Sections 13, 17 - The court interpreted sections to affirm the statutory rights of borrowers to challenge proceedings in Debt Recovery Tribunal, emphasizing interim measures to maintain status quo pending challenges.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought to declare their entitlement to benefits under an OTS scheme and to challenge a notice issued for eviction under the SARFAESI Act, claiming a right to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court recognized the petitioners' statutory right to file applications in the Debt Recovery Tribunal and ordered a temporary status quo on evictions to allow them time to respond.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to halt eviction proceedings under SARFAESI while they challenge the notices in the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that petitioners have a legal right to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, reinforcing that courts should allow status quo to maintain the subject matter during such proceedings.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of with directions for maintaining status quo for 14 days.
JUDGMENT
The prayers in the above W.P.(C.) No.2255/2020 are as follows :
1. “To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get all the benefits of OTS scheme promulgated by the respondent bank, as the respondent is prepared to remit the amount of loanees contribution as suggested by the bank.
2. To call for the records relating to petitioners loan leading to Ext.P1 notice and to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction.
3. To direct the respondent not to take any further proceeding for sale of the property shown in the schedule of Ext.P1 as per the provision of Sec.13 of SARFAESI Act .”
4. To direct the respondent to serve the petitioner a detailed statement of accounts showing the amounts due under term loan No.4 and to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to settle the loan account under the one time settlement scheme applicable to the respondent.
5. To grant such other appropriate orders directions or writs as deem fit by this Honourable court in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
The prayers in the above W.P.(C.) No.2284/2020 are as follows :
i. “Call for the records leading up to Ext.P4 and declare that the petitioners are not liable to be evicted from their respective tenanted premises namely, door No.XIII/319[now XXI/1208] and door No.XVIII/325 of Kottayam Municipality pursuant to Ext.P4 notice issued under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act .
ii. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order forbearing the 3rd respondent from evicting the petitioners from their respective tenanted premises namely, door No.XIII/319 [now XXI/1208] and door No.XVIII/325 of Kottayam Municipality pursuant to Ext.P4 notice issued under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act .
ii. Issue such other writ, direction or order as are just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.”
2. Heard Sri.P.K.Ramkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No.2255/2020 and Sri.Mathew John, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.C No.2284/2020 and Sri.Gilbert George Correya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd.).
3. In the nature of the orders proposed to pass in this petition, notices to contesting respondents in W.P.(C.) No.2284/2020 will stand dispensed with. Sri. P.K.Ramkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No.2255/2020 and Sri.Mathew John, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit on the basis of instructions of the respective parties that the petitioners have been advised to immediately approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam to challenge the impugned proceedings by filing an appropriate securitization application under Sec.17 of the SARFAESI Act and further that in the interest of justice, this Court may order that further coercive steps for evicting the petitioners from the subject property may not taken by the respondents in the meanwhile. It is indeed indisputable that the petitioners have a statutory remedy by approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing application under SARFAESI Act . It goes without saying that the petitioners indeed have a statutory right to approach the DRT by filing the abovesaid applications under Sec.17 of the SARFAESI Act to challenge the proceedings concerned.
4. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to immediately approach the DRT without any further delay. However, in the interest of justice and solely for the purpose of preservation of the subject matter of lis, it is ordered that the status quo as regards the subject property be maintained by the respondents, for a limited period of 14 days from today. The said order has been passed in order to enable the petitioners to get some breathing time to approach the DRT as aforestated and the said order has been issued only for the purpose of the preservation of subject matter of the lis and shall be constru
