V.K.Sivadas vs Pala Urban Co-Operative Bank ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4251 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
     THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1944
                          OP (DRT) NO. 22 OF 2022
     AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ID 386/2022 OF DEBT RECOVERY
                            TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS:

      1      V.K.SIVADAS,
             AGED 55 YEARS
             S/O. KRISHNAN V.R., VATTAPPARA HOUSE,
             RAMAPURAM P.O., 686576.
      2      KRISHNAN V.R.,
             AGED 75 YEARS
             S/O. RAMAN, VATTAPPARA HOUSE,
             RAMAPURAM P.O., 686576.

             BY ADV S.SACHITHANANDA PAI


RESPONDENTS:

      1      PALA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE     BANK LTD.NO.1850,
             HEAD OFFICE, PALA P.O.,     686575.
      2      THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
             PALA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE     BANK LTD. NO.1850,
             HEAD OFFICE, PALA P.O.,     686575.

             BY ADV P.C.HARIDAS



THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON    07.04.2022,   THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 OP (DRT) 22/2022
                                         2



                       BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
                     ..............................................
                         O.P.(DRT) No.22 of 2022
                        .....................................
                   Dated this the 7 th day of April, 2022

                                   JUDGMENT

The challenge in this original petition is against the

measures initiated under the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement

of Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. Petitioners have already preferred S.A.No.24/2022

before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam.

However, due to the non functioning of the said

Tribunal, petitioner could not obtain appropriate

reliefs.

3. When the matter was taken up for consideration,

this Court had directed the proceedings for

dispossession as well as sale of the properties to be

kept in abeyance on conditional deposit. Petitioner

has complied with the condition OP (DRT) 22/2022

4. Sri.P.C.Haridas, the learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent-Bank submitted that the Tribunal has

commenced its functioning and the petitioners can

pursue their statutory remedy before the Tribunal.

5. Taking note of the changed circumstances, I am of

the view that this original petition need not be kept

pending.

6. Therefore, reserving the liberty of the petitioners to

pursue their remedies before the Tribunal, this

original petition is disposed. However, the interim

order dated 13.01.2022 shall continue for a further

period of 60 days to enable the petitioners to pursue

their statutory remedy before the Tribunal, in

accordance with law.

The original petition is disposed.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/08/04//2022 OP (DRT) 22/2022

APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 22/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4.8.2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 17.9.2021 OF THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P3 LETTER DATED 28.9.2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 CERTIFICATE DATED 5.1.2022 ISSUED BY AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, RAMAPURAM. Exhibit P5 NOTICE DATED 22.12.2021 OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.

Exhibit P6 COPY OF S A FILED BEFORE THE DRT ERNAKULAM.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JDUGE