Sijo Joseph vs The Authorized Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 16671 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943
                      OP (DRT) NO. 104 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SA 156/2020 OF DEBT RECOVERY
                   TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:

            SIJO JOSEPH
            AGED 44 YEARS
            S/O.P.K.JOSEPH, PUTHUPPARA HOUSE, KIDANGOOR
            P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683572.
            BY ADVS.
            V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN
            GIRISH KUMAR V.C


RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
            SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., SIB BOUSE, T.B.ROAD,
            MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR-680001.

    2       MR.ALBERTY T.Y.,
            THEKKUMPEEDIKA HOUSE, THRIKKUR P.O., THRISSUR,
            PIN-680306.



            SRI. SUNIL SHANKER - SC



        THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION     ON   11.08.2021,   THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP (DRT) NO. 104 OF 2021            2

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court with

the singular plea that, even though he had invoked

his alternative remedy, by filing Exts.P1

Securitisation Application and Ex.P2 stay along

with it, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT),

Ernakulam, the said Tribunal has not considered

the same because it was not functional at the time

when the said applications were filed.

2. Shri.Sunil Sankar, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the respondent - Bank responded to

the afore submissions of Shri.V.K.Peer Mohamed,

learned counsel for the petitioner, saying that he

does not stand in the way of the DRT being

directed to dispose of Ext.P2 stay petition, but

that the sale of the secured asset has already

been fructified and confirmed in favour of the 2nd

respondent. He, therefore, prayed that no

interdiction to the same may be ordered by this

Court at this time.

Taking note of the afore submissions and since

it is conceded that the DRT was not functioning

when Exts.P1 and P2 applications are filed by the

petitioner, I order this Original Petition

directing the said Tribunal to take up Ext.P2

application for stay and dispose of the same,

after affording necessary opportunity of being

hard to all sides, thus culminating in an

appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is

possible, but not later than six weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

MC

APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 104/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED SECURITIZATION APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS SA NO.156/2020 BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, ERNAKULAM ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A.NO.1041/2020 IN SA NO.156/2020 ON THE FILES OF DRT-II ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT AND THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK IN SA NO.156/2020 ON THE FILES OF THE DRT-II ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.384/2021.