Sreekumari E vs The Authorised Officer, Indian ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6577 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
     THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                       OP (DRT) NO. 52 OF 2021
    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 106/2018 OF DEBT RECOVERY
                         TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS:

    1     SREEKUMARI E.
          AGED 49 YEARS, W/O. G.THANKARAJAN,
          RATHI BHAVAN, AYANIMOODU, PALLICHAL P.O.,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

    2     G.THANKARAJAN
          RATHI BHAVAN, AYANIMOODU, PALLICHAL P.O.,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

          BY ADV P.SHRIHARI



RESPONDENT:

          THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
          INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,
          ARALUMOODU BRANCH, MNC 1/282A,
          SULAIKHA COMPLEX, VAZHIMUKKU JN.,
          BALARAMAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          PIN-695 501

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.SUNIL SHANKER
          SMT.VIDYA GANGADHARAN




     THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P(DRT) No.52/2021                2




                      JUDGMENT

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would submit that this Original Petition was filed at a time

when there was no regular sitting at the Debts Recovery

Tribunal, Ernakulam. It is submitted that this Court by

interim order dated 30-04-2021, directed that any sale in

respect of the petitioner's property shall be deferred by a

period of 1 month. It is submitted that the Securitisation

Application filed by the petitioners as S.A.No.140/2021 is

now listed for consideration on 29-08-2022. It is prayed that

the interim order granted by this Court may be continued till

29-08-2022.

2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondent bank would submit that the interim order in

question need not be extended as requested by the learned

counsel for the petitioners as the sale which was subject

matter of that order had not taken place. It is submitted

that the sale did not fructify for want of bidders.

3. Taking note of the submissions of the learned

counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel

for the respondent bank, I am of the opinion that this

O.P(DRT) can be closed leaving it open to the petitioners to

pursue their remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

ats

APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 52/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.11.2015 PURPORTEDLY ISSUED AS DEMAND NOTICE UNDER THE PROVISONS OF THE SARFAESI ACT ISSUED BY RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF O.A.106/2018 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES)

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF SALE NOTICE DATED 09.04.2021

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF S.A.NO.140/2021 ON THE FILE OF DRT-2, ERNAKULAM

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF I.A.FOR STAY IN S.A.140/2021

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF I.A.FOR EARLY HEARING IN S.A.140/2021