Kerala High Court
Aliyas T.I vs The Authorized Officer on 21 December, 2023
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
OP (DRT) NO. 555 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
ALIYAS T.I.
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. A. ISSAC, CHITTETHUKUDIYIL HOUSE,
MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686661
BY ADVS.
N.SASI
RASMI NAIR T.
JITHENDRAN S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
MUVATTUPUZHA URBAN CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO. 556.,
HEAD OFFICE, KACHERITHAZHAM,
MUVATTUPUZHA,, PIN - 686661
2 THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, 7 TH FLOOR,
SASTHRI BHAVAN ANNEXE, NUNGAMBAKKAM,
CHENNAI, PIN - 600008
SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR
THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(DRT) No.555 Of 2023
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2023
The petitioner states that S.A.No.271 of 2021 filed by him
was dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Ernakulam
on 20.10.2023. Though the petitioner sought for a free copy of
the judgment, the copy of the judgment was delivered only on
24.11.2023. The petitioner has one month's time to prefer an
appeal. The petitioner had to raise amount for pre-deposit for
filing appeal. Now, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal is
not sitting till 25.12.2023. In such circumstances, the petitioner
seeks a breathing time to file statutory appeal before the DRAT
against the order dated 20.10.2023 of the DRT-1, Ernakulam.
2. Standing Counsel entered appearance and
vehemently resisted the O.P (DRT). On behalf of the
respondents, it is submitted that the Advocate Commissioner
had went to take possession of the property and at that point of
time, the petitioner agreed to pay the entire outstanding
O.P.(DRT) No.555 Of 2023
amount within two days. It is in the meanwhile that the
petitioner has approached the Legal Forum. The petitioner is
not reliable. The sole intention of the petitioner is to delay the
recovery process and the total amount due from the petitioner
is more than ₹56 lakhs.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Standing Counsel representing the
respondents.
4. The petitioner had moved the Debts Recovery
Tribunal-1, Ernakulam filing S.A.No.271 of 2021. The S.A. was
dismissed on 20.10.2023. The petitioner has a statutory
remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The DRAT is not holding sitting till
25.12.2023.
O.P.(DRT) No.555 Of 2023
5. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the
petitioner can be granted a breathing time to approach the
DRAT on strict conditions.
The O.P (DRT) is therefore disposed of directing that if
the petitioner remits an amount of ₹10 lakhs within a period of
two weeks, then coercive proceedings, if any, shall stand
deferred till 15.01.2024, in order to enable the petitioner to
move the DRAT with statutory appeal.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
hmh
O.P.(DRT) No.555 Of 2023
APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 555/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2023
