Arun Kumar vs Dhanlaxmi Bank Limited
2021 Latest Caselaw 17303 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
         TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1943
                         OP (DRT) NO. 108 OF 2021
   ARISING FROM SA 112/2021 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM,
                                ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS:

     1        ARUN KUMAR
              AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.A.K.RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR, HOUSE NO.1108,
              SUNNY PALACE, CHANGAMBUZHA SAMAS ROAD, EDAPPALLY NORTH
              VILLAGE, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682024.

     2        BINU JOSEPH,
              HOUSE NO.1108, SUNNY PALACE, CHANGAMBUZHA SAMAS ROAD,
              EDAPPALLY NORTH VILLAGE, EDAPPALLY,
              KOCHI-682024, PROPRIETOR, M/S THE GREENS CLUB, KARAKULAM,
              NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM-695564.

              BY ADVS.
              ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)
              ANIL ABEY JOSE

RESPONDENTS:

     1        DHANLAXMI BANK LIMITED,
              KARAKULAM BRANCH, KP/1024, AKRP BUILDINGS, PALAM
              JUNCTION, VAZHYILA KARAKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
              DISTRICT-695564,REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

     2        THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER SARFAESI ACT,
              DHANLAXMI BANK LIMITED, KARAKULAM BRANCH, KP/1024, AKRP
              BUILDINGS, PALAM JUNCTION,
              VAZHYILA KARAKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695564.

     3        REGISTRAR DEBTY RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II,
              ERNAKULAM-682036.


OTHER PRESENT:
           ADV. BALACHANDRAN (SC FOR BANK)

     THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP (DRT) No.108/2021                      -2-

                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioners are Directors of a Private Limited Company against whom

proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) has been initiated by the

Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he seek only

a limited relief in this original petition which is for a direction to the Debts Recovery

Tribunal (Kerala and Lakshadweep) to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 application

filed for interim relief in Securitization Appeal No.112/2021. The learned counsel

appearing for the respondent Bank stoutly opposes the prayer made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. He would submit with reference to the averments in

paragraph 4 of the original petition that several writ petitions have been filed earlier

before this court challenging the securitization proceedings. It is submitted that

securitization proceedings were continued only on account of the fact that the

petitioners failed to clear the arrears despite being given several opportunities to do so.

2. The work in the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Kerala and Lakshadweep) is

divided between two benches namely DRT-I and DRT-II. It is the admitted case that

there was no sitting in DRT-II on account of the fact that there was no Presiding

Officer there and that now the Presiding Officer of the DRT-I has been given charge of

DRT-II as well. Considering the fact that Ext.P5 is a matter to be taken up and

disposed of by DRT-II, I am of the opinion that this original petition can be disposed of

directing that Ext.P5 application shall be considered either by the DRT-II or by the

Presiding Officer given charge of the DRT-II with notice to the parties within a period

of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such time

orders as are passed on Ext.P5 application for interim relief, physical possession of the

mortgaged properties shall not be taken by the respondent bank. The petitioners will

not do any act which will reduce the value of the properties or any act which will affect

the security of the Bank in respect of the amounts owned to the Bank. I make it clear

that I am not expressing any opinion on the merits of contentions of either side and

that Ext.P5 application may be disposed of as above untrammelled by any observations

contained in this judgment. Once final orders are passed in Ext.P5 application the

parties will be bound by the conditions of such order.

3. After this judgment was pronounced, I was informed that the Presiding

Officer of DRT-I is presently on leave and charge has, therefore, been given to DRT-III,

Chennai. Therefore, Ext.P5 application can also be considered by the DRT-III,

Chennai during the period of absence of the Presiding Officer of DRT-I (Kerala and

Lakshadweep).

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

AMG

APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 108/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SEC.13 (2) OF SARFAESI ACT,2002, DATED 31.06.2019

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 14.08.2019.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADV.COMMISSIONER TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 18-11-2019

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SA NO.112 OF 2021 WITHOUT ANNEXURE DATED 03.03.2021.

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FOR STAY FILED BY THE PETITIONERS ALONG WITH EXT.P4 DATED 03.03.2021.

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT INTIMATING THAT THE OTS FACILITY SANCTIONED ON 27.01.2021 HAS BEEN CANCELLED 16.07.2021.