Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 34470
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. Balakrishnan, J
Bijin K.B. – Appellant
Versus
Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. – Respondent
OP (DRT) NO. 172 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prasanth V.C.
For the Respondents: Sreekala Krishnadas, C.Vivek, Ashly James, Anagha Madath Thekke patte, Sreepriya K.U., Elsa E. Thampi, Clint Jude Lewis
The High Court may exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 to regularize compliance with conditional orders of the DRT if the underlying conditions are met during the pendency of the writ petition.
Headnote:The case involves a challenge under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India against an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal(DRT) which rejected an extension application to deposit a balance amount directed for stay of recovery proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The court observed that the petitioner had since cleared the required balance during the pendency of the current proceedings in the High Court. The High Court determined that granting relief would be appropriate given the demonstrated compliance. The main issue was whether the petitioner could be granted an extension to comply with the conditional stay order imposed by the DRT. The rationale of the decision is that since the condition for the stay has been met by the petitioner during the pendency of the High Court proceedings, the rigid application of the previous rejection order is no longer necessary, and equity demands the restoration of the interlocutory application before the Tribunal for adjudication on merits. The final outcome is that the court directs the Tribunal to treat the deposited amount as compliance with the earlier order and mandates the restoration of the relevant interlocutory application for further hearing.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts regarding sa no. 817/2025 and conditional recovery stay. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. submission of partial payment during high court proceedings. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
This OP(DRT) has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) Issue an appropriate supervisory direction or order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India setting aside the order dated 05.05.2026 in I.A. No.1004/2026 in S.A. No. 817/2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam.
(ii) Grant the petitioner an extension of three weeks to deposit the remaining balance amount of ₹9,00,000/-
as originally contemplated in the conditional stay order.”
2. The petitioner is the applicant in SA No.817 of 2025 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam. He filed the afore SA challenging the recovery proceedings initiated against him under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. As per Ext.P2 order, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, on 25.11.2025 deferred taking physical possession of the petitioner’s residential property, subject to the condition that he deposits a sum of Rs.20 lakhs on or before 15.12.2025.
3. In part compliance of the direction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.11 lakhs as per Ext.P3. Since he could not pay the balance Rs.9 lakhs, he filed Ext.P4 extension application seeking three weeks time to pay the amount. But the same was rejected by the Debts Recovery Tribunal as per Ext.P5 order dated 05.05.2026. It is in such circumstances, this OP(DRT) was filed by the petitioner seeking the afore relief.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of this OP (DRT), the balance amount of Rs.9 lakhs has been paid by the petitioner, as per the interim orders passed by this Court on 12.05.2026 and 29.05.2026. Hence, he prayed that the afore payment may be considered as due compliance of Ext.P2 order and IA No.4528 of 2025 may be restored back, for consideration. 6. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner has deposited the balance Rs.9 lakhs during the pendency of this OP (DRT) and therefore, the payment can be considered as a payment in compliance with Ext.P2 order.
In the light of the submissions made at the Bar and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, including the fact that the petitioner has remitted the balance amount of Rs.9 lakhs during the pendency of this OP(DRT), by taking a lenient view, this OP (DRT) is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to treat the afore payment of Rs.9 lakhs, as payment made in due compliance of Ext.P2 order. There shall also be a direction to the Tribunal to restore I.A.No.4528 of 2025 and pass appropriate orders thereon, after hearing all the parties concerned.
