S.Minimol vs The State Bank Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 22428 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
      TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                             RP NO. 769 OF 2021
        AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP (DRT) 79/2021 DATED 10.08.2021


REVIEW PETITIONERS:

              1. S.MINIMOL, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O SUNDARESAN, RESIDING AT
              KUNNUVILAVEEDU, KUZHIMATHIKKADU MURI, VAKKANADU PO,
              KAREEPARA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691
              509

              2. SUKHALAL SARMA, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O SAHADEVAN, RESIDING
              AT 'AMBILY BHAVAN', KUNNUVILA VEEDU, KUZHIMATHICADU,
              VAKKANADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 509

              BY ADVS.
              SREEDEVI KYLASANATH
              ACHUTH KYLAS
              JOSELAL GEORGE
              R.MAHESH MENON
              DEAGO JOHN K


RESPONDENT:

              THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMECCC, 2ND FLOOR, RAVI'S ARCADE,
              NEAR IRON BRIDGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 013

              SRI.TOM K THOMAS - SC


     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP 769/21
                                      2

                         O R D E R

This application, for review of the judgment of this Court

dated 10.08.2021, has been filed on the singular plea that the

Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Ernakulam (DRT for short) is not

functioning now.

2. Going by the judgment sought to be reviewed, I had

directed the DRT to take up Ext.P8 Review Petition and dispose

of the same within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of its copy. However, it is conceded that the DRT was

not sitting thereafter. I am, therefore, of the view that the

petitioners must be given latitude of another two months time,

so as to enable the DRT to dispose of the matter in terms of

the judgment.

Resultantly, this Review Petition is allowed to the limited

extent of extending the time frame by a further period of two

months and leaving liberty to the petitioners to invoke every RP 769/21

remedy that may be available to them in law to ensure that

the Review Petition is disposed of by the DRT within that time

frame.

Needless to say, until such time as the DRT disposes of

the Review Petition or until the afore period expires, all further

action being pursued by the Bank under the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities

Interest Act shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

RR                                     DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                              JUDGE