Venu Kumar.K vs State Bank Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 490 Ker

             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

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. 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

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

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

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