Sajayan.V.V vs The Punjab National Bank, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9251 Ker

OP(DRT).324/22                         1



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
     WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944
                         OP (DRT) NO. 324 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTSA 210/2022 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,
                                  ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:

             SAJAYAN.V.V
             S/O.VELAYUDHAN PILLAI
             AGED 54 YEARS,T.C 28/834,
             EDAVAMADAM LANE, PETTA.P.O.
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 024

             BY ADVS.
             SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
             AMJATH A.R


RESPONDENT/S:

             THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,
             PALKULANGARA BRANCH,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024 REPRESENTED BY
             ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, PIN - 695024
             BY ADV C.Ajith Kumar


      THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(DRT).324/22                               2




                                     JUDGMENT

Petitioner approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam by

filing S.A. No.210 of 2022 challenging proceedings initiated against the

petitioner for recovery of amounts due under a housing loan. The petitioner

also filed an interlocutory application for stay and the Tribunal, after

considering the submissions of the petitioner, passed Ext.P3 order directing the

petitioner to make payment of a total amount of Rs.8 lakhs in some

instalments.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is

not in a position to comply with the conditions imposed in Ext.P3 interim order

and the petitioner has, therefore, approached the Tribunal with Ext.P5

application for modification of the conditions upon which stay of proceedings

has been granted.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank

vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the petitioner. It is submitted

that Ext.P3 order was an order passed on consent as is evident from a reading

of Ext.P3. It is submitted that despite the fact that the said order was passed in

the month of May 2022, even as on date, a copy of the securitisation

application filed by the petitioner has not been served on the bank. It is

submitted that, after obtaining an interim order from the Debts Recovery

Tribunal, the petitioner purposefully did not take steps to ensure that the

matter is not disposed of with notice to the bank. It is submitted that the

petitioner also failed to comply with the directions contained in the order and

has remitted only a sum of Rs.3,45,090/-. It is submitted that, in the above

facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this

Court.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

considering the fact that the petitioner has complied with Ext.P3 order, at least

in part, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the original petition directing the

Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5

application filed by the petitioner for modification of Ext.P3 order with notice

to the petitioner and to the respondent bank within a period of six weeks from

the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In order to enable the

consideration of the matter by the Debts Recovery Tribunal as above, the

petitioner as well as the respondent bank, through their respective counsel,

shall mark appearance before the Tribunal on 30.8.2022, to which date the

securitisation application filed by the petitioner has been listed for

consideration. Taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for

the bank that a copy of the securitisation application and connected

interlocutory applications has not been served to the respondent bank, it is

directed that the petitioner shall serve a copy of the securitisation application

and all connected interlocutory applications to the counsel appearing for the

respondent bank in this Court forthwith. Till such time as orders are passed on

Ext.P5 application as aforesaid, further coercive steps against the petitioner

shall be kept in abeyance. It is open to the petitioner to raise all legal

contentions before the Tribunal.

The original petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/ GOPINATH P.

JUDGE okb/ //True copy// P.S. to Judge

APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 324/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE SARFAESI ACT IN M.C NO.247/2022 BEFORE THE CJM COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2022 IN M.C NO.247/2022 BY THE CJM COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 04.05.2022 IN S.A NO.210/2022 BY THE DRT-II ERNAKULAM Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PASS BOOK OF THE PETITIONER EVIDENCING PAYMENTS UP TO 25.07.2022 Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 20.05.2022 Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A 868/2022 IN S.A NO.210/2022 BEFORE THE DRT-II ERNAKULAM DATED 29.07.2022