Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32450
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. Balakrishnan, J
Saranya Reghu – Appellant
Versus
Indian Bank – Respondent
OP (DRT) NO. 1 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Deepak Joy.K., V.A.Vinod Kum.P.S.Lakshmi, Angel Jacob
For the Respondents: Binoy Vasudevan
The High Court may grant discretionary relief in petitions against interlocutory tribunal orders, even where an alternative appellate remedy exists, when the borrower demonstrates a willingness to comply with conditional stay terms to prevent immediate dispossession of secured assets.
Headnote:This petition challenges an interim order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal directing the petitioner to deposit a specific sum as a condition for staying physical possession of a secured asset. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the merits of the case and cited financial constraints during proceedings before the High Court. The Court noted the existence of an alternative remedy before the Appellate Tribunal but exercised its discretionary power to grant a final opportunity for payment. The main issue was whether the petitioner could be granted time to comply with a conditional stay order despite the availability of an alternative remedy. The court observed that while an efficacious alternative remedy exists, leniency could be extended to allow the petitioner an opportunity to regularize the account, balancing the interests of the debtor against the lender's recovery rights. The original petition is allowed in part, and the petitioner is directed to remit the amount within the specified timeframe to stay the possession of the secured asset for a period of two months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of relief sought and respective contentions of the parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's discretion to grant additional time for compliance despite alternative remedies existing. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of June, 2026 The main relief sought for by the petitioner in this original petition is to set aside Ext.P13 proceedings dated 16.12.2025 in I.A.No.4840 of 2025 in S.A.No.888 of 2025 of the DRT-I, Ernakulam to the extent that the Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.10 lakhs as a pre-
condition for not taking physical possession.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P13 order has been passed by the Tribunal, without application of mind and without considering any of the contentions raised by the petitioner on merits. He submitted that the DRT is bound to consider the merits of the case and the contentions raised by the petitioner before passing an interim order. He further submitted that the petitioner could not comply with the interim order, since she was having financial difficulties and if a reasonable time is granted, she will deposit the amount as directed in Ext.P13.
4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the remedy of the petitioner is to challenge Ext.P13 order in the DRAT. She also submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20988 of 2025 and has not complied with the directions passed by this Court and paid the installments. She further contended that admittedly, there is an overdue amount of more than Rs.17 lakhs as on June, 2025 and the total outstanding is more than Rs.75 lakhs and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.
5. On an anxious consideration of the rival submissions and the materials on record, I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner is having an efficacious alternative remedy to challenge Ext.P13 by way of an appeal, before the DRAT. But, considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to pay the amount as ordered by the DRT in Ext.P13 within a reasonable time; by showing leniency, I am inclined to grant an opportunity, as last chance, to deposit the money, as ordered in Ext.P13.
Ergo, this original petition is allowed in part and the petitioner is directed to remit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) on or before 15.06.2026 before the bank and produce evidence regarding the same before the DRT. If the petitioner thus deposits the amount, the respondent shall defer taking possession of the secured asset for a period of two months, subject to further orders to be passed by the DRT in I.A.No.4840 of 2025 filed by the petitioner, in S.A.No.888 of
2025.
