Biji B vs The Authorised Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 20709 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
     TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943
                       OP (DRT) NO. 155 OF 2021
    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SA 206/2020 OF DEBT RECOVERY
                    TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:

          BIJI B.
          W/O. SATHEESH KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS,
          ANIZHAM, VILLIMANGALAM,
          MONDROTHURUTH , KOLLAM-691 010

          BY ADV R.S.KALKURA



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
          THE DHANALAXMI BANK LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AMRITH PLAZA, 2ND FLOOR,
          TC 30/1368/4, PETTAH P.O.,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 024

    2     MOHAN BALAKRISHNAN,
          AGED 58 YEARS
          S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT VINU BHAVAN,
          PATTAMTHURUTH P.O., PATTAMTHURUTHU MURI,
          MONROTHURUTH, KOLLAM,PIN-691 502

    3     THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II,
          5TH FLOOR, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,
          PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682 036


THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
      OP (DRT) NO. 155 OF 2021

                                           2




                         BECHU KURIAN THOMAS,                  J

                 ===========================
                      O.P(DRT) No.155 of 2021
                     ---------------------------------
              Dated this the 5 th day of October, 2021

                                   JUDGMENT

The sole relief sought for in this original petition is

for a direction to the 3 rd respondent-Tribunal to

consider the interim prayer in Ext.P4, as

expeditiously as possible, in a time bound manner.

2. The interim relief sought for in Ext.P4

securitisation application is to restrain the 3 rd

defendant therein, who is the 2 nd respondent in this

original petition from altering the lie, nature and

character of the scheduled property, till the disposal

of the application.

3. Adv.C.K.Karunakaran, appearing on behalf of the

1 st respondent takes notice and submits that, the

property, relating to which relief is clained in this

original petition was sold under the SARFAESI Act, OP (DRT) NO. 155 OF 2021

on 05.11.2019 and thereafter a sale certificate dated

03.12.2019 was issued by the authorised officer.

The sale certificate was thereafter registered on

11.03.2020 in favour of the 2 nd respondent-auction

purchaser. It was also submitted that the petitioner

approached the DRT with the securitisation

application only in August, 2020 and that Tribunal

refused to grant any interim order, inspite of the

case being taken up ten times. According to the

respondents, it was only thereafter, noticing that the

Tribunal is not functioning, the petitioner has come

up with the present original petition seeking a

direction for an early consideration of the interim

prayer.

4. I have heard Adv.Harish Gopinath, the learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as

Adv.C.K.Karunakaran, the learned counsel for the

respondent.

OP (DRT) NO. 155 OF 2021

5. On a consideration of the contentions raised by

both the counsel, I am of the view that this is not a

fit case wherein this Court should indulge in

exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article

227 of the Constitution of India for more reasons

than one.

6. The sale took place on November, 2019 and the

sale deed was registered on 11.03.2020. Though

petitioner had ample time to approach the DRT to

obtain appropriate orders, he failed to do so until

August, 2020. DRT did not grant any interim

orders in the said case. This Court reminds itself

that once sale certificate is registered, the rights of

the auction purchaser crystalises and vested rights

accrue to the said acution purchaser. Such a right

cannot be defeated by recourse to Article 227 of the

Constitution of India that too when the securitisation

application is pending.

OP (DRT) NO. 155 OF 2021

7. The relief claimed in this original petition is not

as innoccous as it looks. If allowed, the relief can

havve a tendency to interfere with crystalysed rights

of the acution purchaser. On the other hand,

petitioner will not be put to any prejudice if relief

in this original petition is refused, since, if

ultimately the contentions of the petitioner are

accepted by the Tribunal, there are provisions for

restoring the rights of the petitioner.

In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to

issue any direction and hence, this original petition

is dismissed.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE AMV/06/10//2021 OP (DRT) NO. 155 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 155/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 05.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3.12.2019

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.06.2020 IN W.P.(C)11580 OF 2020

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE S.A.NO.206 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL -II, ERNAKULAM

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.09.2020 IN W.P.(C)15293 OF 2021

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE