Thitta Purushothaman vs The South Indian Bank Limited

Kerala High Court

Thitta Purushothaman vs The South Indian Bank Limited on 11 April, 2024

Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque

Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                                   &
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
    THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
                           WA NO. 547 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.5450 OF 2024 OF HIGH
                            COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS :-

    1     THITTA PURUSHOTHAMAN
          AGED 63 YEARS
          S/O. THITTA RAMAN, THITTA HOUSE,
          AZHIKODE (P.O), KANNUR, PIN - 670009

    2     M/S. PIONEER AUTO AND ENGINEERING WORKS
          REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. THITTA PURUSHOTHAMAN,
          NER DHANALAKSHMI HOSPITAL, THANA, KANNUR, PIN - 670002

          BY ADVS.
          JAWAHAR JOSE
          CISSY MATHEWS
          SAFEER BAWA A.S.


RESPONDENTS :-

    1     THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED
          REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE,
          KVR TOWERS, PAMBAN MADHAVAN ROAD, OPPOSITE L.I.C.
          BUILDING, TALAP, KANNUR., PIN - 670002

    2     POTHAN RAJAN
          S/O. NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT KOUSTHUBHAM, PALLIKKULAM,
          CHIRAKKAL (P.O), KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670011

          BY SRI.K.A.ANAS, PP


     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WA NO. 547 OF 2024
                                  2




                           JUDGMENT

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE,J The crux of the issue is whether the subject of sercuritization belongs to a partnership firm or an individual partner, that is being debated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short the DRT). The appellants filed an appeal before the DRT as against dismissal of stay with certain observation having bearing in merits. The Appellate Tribunal disposed the appeal directing the DRAT to dispose of SA within six weeks. While disposing the appeal, the Appellate Tribunal has not granted interim protection of stay as against the dispossession from the secured assets.

2. Taking note of the above, the learned Single Judge of this Court refused to interfere with the matter. We are also of the view that the untrammeled by observations in the order dismissal of stay petition DRT shall dispose the matter. No interference is warranted WA NO. 547 OF 2024 3 in this matter. We will not be justified in deciding the matter based on the mixed questions of fact and law. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any discretionary relief in favour of the appellant. The DRT shall consider the matter on its merits.

Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Sd/-

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE SMA