Rajesh V.R vs State Bank Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 17881 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943
                     OP (DRT) NO. 51 OF 2021
    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SA 10/2019 OF DEBT RECOVERY
                       TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS:

1           RAJESH V.R
            S/O K.P.VIJARAJAN
            TCXI/1855, 'ROHINI'
            YMR JUNCTION, NANTHENCODE
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024
            K.P.VIJAYARAJAN
            TCXI/1855, 'ROHINI'
2           YMR JUNCTION, NANTHENCODE
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024


            BY ADVS.
            V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN
            SHRI.GIRISH KUMAR V.C


RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

1           STATE BANK OF INDIA
            RREP. BY ITS MANAGER, PETTAH BRANCH,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

2
            THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
            STATE BANK OF INDIA,
            SME CENTRE, 4TH FLOOR,
            AIKKARA ARBOUR, THYCAUD,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014
            BY ADV TOM K.THOMAS, SC
 O.P.(DRT) No.51/21         -:2:-




     THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(DRT) No.51/21                    -:3:-




                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of September, 2021

This original petition is filed seeking a direction to consider

Ext.P2 petition for amendment on the securitisation appeal preferred

by the petitioners before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam.

The reason for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226

of the Constitution of India was that the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II,

Ernakulam was not functioning at the time of preferring this original

petition.

2. It is submitted across the Bar by Adv.V.K.Peer Mohamed

Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

Adv.Tom K.Thomas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents

that by a notification issued recently, the charge of Debt Recovery

Tribunal-II, Ernakulam has been handed over to Debt Recovery

Tribunal-I and hence there is no hurdle in considering Ext.P2

amendment petition. It is also submitted by the learned Standing

Counsel for the respondents that since the sale proposed by the

bank had not taken place, the amendment itself had become

infructuous.

3. Having regard to the fact that the amendment petition is

pending consideration, it is necessary that proper orders have to be

passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I.

4. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the Debt Recovery

Tribunal-in-charge to take up Ext.P2 petition for amendment in S.A.

No.10 of 2019 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance

with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

The original petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE vps

APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 51/2021

PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS S.A NO.

10/2019 BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, ERNAKULAM.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT PETITION IN I.A. NO.635/2021 IN S.A NO. 10/2019.