Gopakumar K.K vs State Bank Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 5449 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
        FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1944
                        OP (DRT) NO. 169 OF 2021
        SA 254/2021 OF DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, ERNAKULAM


PETITIONER :

            GOPAKUMAR K.K.,
            AGED 53 YEARS,
            S/O.KARTHIKEYAN K.K., KAILAS, CHEMBAKAM VILLA,
            KOTTUKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 501

            BY ADVS.
            K.M.ANEESH
            K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM)
            ADARSH KUMAR
            BIJU VARGHESE ABRAHAM
            DILEEP CHANDRAN
            SHASHANK DEVAN



RESPONDENTS :

    1       STATE BANK OF INDIA,
            SRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH, LMS COMPOUND,
            VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., REP.BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER

    2       THE REGISTRAR,
            DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, ERNAKULAM,
            2ND FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING,
            PANAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682 036


            SRI.P.GOPAL, SC



     THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP (DRT) NO. 169 OF 2021
                                   2




                   BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                    O.P.(DRT) No.169 of 2021
                  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                Dated this the 20th day of May, 2022


                             JUDGMENT

This original petition was preferred seeking to restrain all

proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Finaicial

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short,

'the SARFAESI Act') till the Tribunal considers the stay petition filed

in SA.No.129/2021 pending before the said Tribunal.

2. On the date of admission, this Court had restrained

the respondent bank from dispossessing the petitioner and the said

order continues till date. The reason for preferring this original

petition is alleged to be the absence of Presiding Officers of the

Debts Recovery Tribunal. Petitioner's application filed as

SA.No.254/2021 could not be taken up for obtaining interim orders

due to the above reason. The absence, temporary or otherwise of a

forum to adjudicate the grievance of the petitioner deprived him of

his right of access to a court of law. It was in such circumstances OP (DRT) NO. 169 OF 2021

that this Court entertained the original petition.

3. Sri.P.Gopal, the learned Standing Counsel for the

respondents pointed out that petitioner has been a defaulter of six

loans and has been enjoying an unconditional stay for the last six

years that too without paying any amount. According to the learned

counsel for the respondents, since the Tribunal has now commenced

its functioning, petitioner must be pursuing his remedies before the

said Tribunal itself. Sri.K.M.Aneesh and Sri.Shashank Devan, the

learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner can

pursue his remedies before the Tribunal. It was also submitted that

the various contentions raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal

are meritorious and if the same is considered, the entire

proceedings against the petitioner would be interfered with.

4. Having considered the submissions made as above, I

am of the view that since the Tribunal has commenced its

functioning, petitioner can be relegated to the said Tribunal itself to

pursue his challenge in SA.No.129/2021. However, in view of the

contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, I am

of the view that the interim order granted by this Court can

continue for a further period of 45 days from today provided

petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs OP (DRT) NO. 169 OF 2021

only) on or before 20.06.2022. Petitioner will be at liberty to move

the Tribunal for obtaining appropriate interim orders in the pending

Securitisation Application and if such applications are pursued, a

decision thereon will be taken independently without reference to

the present order granted by this Court.

The original petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM OP (DRT) NO. 169 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 169/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF NOTICE POSSESSION DATED 7.8.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF S.A.NO.254/2021 FILED BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, ERNAKULAM

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

Exhibit R1(a) COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE BANK DATED 23.03.2021

Exhibit R1(b) COPY OF THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTUKAL

Exhibit R1(c) COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF EXTENSION OF EQUITABLE MORTGAGE DATED 27.03.2015

Exhibit R1(d) COPY OF ANNEXURE A6 NOTICE AFFIXED ON THE OUTER WALL OF THE BUILDING OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY

Exhibit R1(e) COPY OF ANNEXURE A6 NOTICE PUBLISHED IN KIERALA KAUMUDHI DAILY AND NEW SUNDAY EXPRESS DAILY DATED 08.08.2021.