IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942
OP (DRT).No.1 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SA 1/2021 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
1 VENU KUMAR.K
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. P.S.KESAVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, NO.103,
RAMYA REGENCY, F4 CROSS 10TH MAIN,
JEEVAN BIMA NAGAR, BANGALURU-560 075.
2 ABHA THANGOOR VASUDEVAN,
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O. VENU KUMAR K., NO.103, RAMYA REGENCY,
F4 CROSS 10TH MAIN, JEEVAN BIMA NAGAR,
BANGALURU-560 075.
BY ADV. SRI.M.HARISHARMA
RESPONDENT/DEFENDENT:
STATE BANK OF INDIA
STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH, LMS COMPOUND,
OPP. MUSEUM WEST GATE, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI S. EASWARAN -SC
THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (DRT).No.1 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of January 2021 The petitioners have approached this Court projecting a singular grievance that, even tough they had preferred Ext.P1 Securitisation Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam ('Tribunal' for short) same has not been considered until now, since the said Tribunal is not sitting.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri.M.Hari Sharma, submits that on account of the fact that the Tribunal is not presently sitting, his clients are being subjected to irreparable prejudice because, pending consideration of the Securitisation Application, the Bank has now scheduled sale of the secured assets and has notified it to be conducted on 11.01.2021. Shri. Hari Sharma, therefore, prays that the sale now proposed by the Bank, under the provisions of the Securitisation and OP (DRT).No.1 OF 2021 3 Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act (the 'SARFAESI Act' for short) be directed to be deferred and the Tribunal be directed to take up and consider the interim application preferred along with the Securitisation Application at the earliest.
3. In response, Shri. S.Easwaran, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank, submitted that the sale notification was issued by the Bank on 02.12.2020 but that the petitioners chose to wait until 01.01.2021 to file the Securitisation Application. He added to his submissions by saying that, even though there was no sitting of the DRT in Ernakulam, the charge had been given to the DRT in Chennai and nothing stopped the petitioners from moving the said Tribunal for interim orders. He, therefore, prayed that this Original petition be dismissed.
OP (DRT).No.1 OF 2021 4
4. After contending as above, as an alternative suggestion, Shri. Easwaran submitted that if this Court is inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners, then the Bank may be permitted to accept the bids on 11.01.2021 and that they are willing to defer consideration of the same for a reasonable time, as this Court may fix.
5. On hearing Shri.Easwaran as afore, Shri. Hari Sharma submitted that it is not correct that his clients had not attempted to have the Securitisation Application moved before the DRT in charge and that in spite of his best efforts, the Tribunal was not listing the matter and that he understands that the sitting in the DRT Ernakulam will commence on 11.01.2021. He, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that sale of the secured assets be directed to be deferred for at least two weeks therefrom.
6. When I consider the afore submissions, it OP (DRT).No.1 OF 2021 5 is indubitable - it being virtually admitted - that the DRT in Ernakulam has not been sitting for the last few days. It may be true that the DRT in Chennai had been given additional charge, but that by itself, in my view, would not be sufficient to deny reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to move their Securitisation Application, it being a statutory remedy.
In such circumstances and in view of the conflicting interests of the parties, I am of the firm opinion that this Original petition needs to be ordered in the following lines:
i) The respondent Bank is permitted to accept the bids on 11.01.2021, as per their original sale notification; but they are directed not to process the same or to confirm it for a period of ten days therefrom.
ii) The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, is directed to take up the stay OP (DRT).No.1 OF 2021 6 application preferred by the petitioners along with their Securitisation Application and dispose of the same, after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to both sides, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than one week from 11.01.2021.
iii) Needless to say, depending upon the orders to be issued by the DRT, the Bank will be at liberty to deal with the bids they have received in terms of their sale notification.
This Original petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN Sn JUDGE OP (DRT).No.1 OF 2021 7 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF S.A.NO.1 OF 2021 ON THE FILES OF DRT-II, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1 OF 2021 IN S.A.NO.1 OF 2021 ON THE FILES OF DRT-II, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.2 OF 2021 IN S.A.NO.1 OF 2021 ON THE FILES OF DRT-II, ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL
Sn
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE