Kerala High Court
Rajesh Venugopal vs The Authorized Officer & The Chief ... on 26 December, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 5TH POUSHA, 1945
OP (DRT) NO. 563 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SA 375/2022 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:
1 RAJESH VENUGOPAL
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. K.P. VENUGOPAL, PARTNER, M/S. SUNCREATIONS,
RESIDING AT 35/181B, DEVADATHAM, NEAR MUTHOOT HONDA
SHOWROOM, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI REPRESENTED BY HIS POA
HOLDER K. BALAKRISHNAN,A GED 51 YEARS,S/O. LATE
KUMARANKUTTY MENON, RESIDING AT 35/181B, DEVADATHAM,
NEAR MUTHOOT HONDA SHOWROOM, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI, PIN -
682025
2 MALINI RAJESH
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O. RAJESH VENUGOPAL, PARTNER, M/S. SUNCREATIONS,
RESIDING AT 35/181B, DEVADATHAM, NEAR MUTHOOT HONDA
SHOWROOM, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI , REPRESENTED BY HIS POA
HOLDER K. BALAKRISHNAN,AGED 51 YEARS,S/O. LATE
KUMARANKUTTY MENON, RESIDING AT 35/181B, DEVADATHAM,
NEAR MUTHOOT HONDA SHOWROOM, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI, PIN -
682025
3 LEKSHMYKUTTY AMMA
AGED 72 YEARS
W/O. LATE KUMARANKUTTY MENON, RESIDING AT 35/181B,
DEVADATHAM, NEAR MUTHOOT HONDA SHOWROOM, PALARIVATTOM,
KOCHI, PIN - 682025
4 BALAKRISHNAN K
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. LATE KUMARANKUTTY MENON, RESIDING AT 35/181B,
DEVADATHAM, NEAR MUTHOOT HONDA SHOWROOM, PALARIVATTOM,
KOCHI, PIN - 682025
BY ADVS.
K.MANOJ CHANDRAN.K.
N.SASI
P.R.AJITH KUMAR
AMMU CHARLES
RESPONDENT/S/DEFENDANT:
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER & THE CHIEF MANAGER
OP (DRT) NO. 563 OF 2023
2
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE SIB
BUILDING INFOPARK ROAD, RAJAGIRI VALLEY PO
KAKKANAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682039
SRI. C AJITHKUMAR, SC FOR SOUTH INDIAN BANK
THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 26.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (DRT) NO. 563 OF 2023
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of December, 2023
The petitioners have availed a term loan from the respondent
Bank in the year 2012. During 2019, the Bank initiated proceedings
against the petitioners under the Securitisation and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(herein after referred to as "SARFAESI Act") for the default in
payment of the loan amount. On 17.09.2019, the respondent Bank
issued notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act against the
petitioners and demanded the entire amount to be paid within 60
days. The respondent - Bank approached the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ernakulam and filed M.C.No.29 of 2021 for taking
possession of the property. An order dated 10.06.2022, was issued
by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, to take physical
possession of the property. As per the order, the Advocate
Commissioner issued notice on 19.07.2022, stating that the property
will be taken possession on 03.08.2022. Aggrieved by the said order
as well as the letter issued by the Advocate Commissioner for taking
possession, the petitioner approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal 1,
Ernakulam with S.A.No.375 of 2022. After the respondent entered
appearance, the DRT, Ernakulam, dismissed the application by order
OP (DRT) NO. 563 OF 2023
dated 13.12.2023, which is produced as Ext.P-3.
2. The grievance of the petitioners highlighted in this writ
petition is that, the certified copy of the order, dismissing the
Securitisation Application was received by the petitioners only on
22.12.2023. The petitioners have got 30 days time to file appeal
against the order dated 13.12.2023 before the Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, but the respondent - Bank is taking hasty steps
to take physical possession of the residential building of the
petitioners before the petitioner approaches the appellate tribunal.
If such steps are taken by the respondent - Bank, the petitioners
would be put to irreparable injury and hardship.
3. The Counsel for the Bank submits that, though the order
was passed on 13.12.2023, the petitioners received the certified copy
of the order only on 22.12.2023. The petitioners ought to have filed
the appeal within a reasonable time and they cannot delay it till the
last date prescribed by the Act.
4. On perusal of Ext.P3, it would show that the petitioners
received the free copies of the order of the DRT, Ernakulam on
22.12.2023. The petitioners, if so advised, can file appeal against the
OP (DRT) NO. 563 OF 2023
said Bank before the DRAT. Though the time prescribed for filing
appeal before the DRAT is 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment,
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case, more than 50 lakhs is the amount demanded by the respondent
- Bank and also the petitioner is having 30 days time for filing the
appeal before the DRAT, this Original Petition (DRT) is disposed of,
giving the petitioner the time till 16 th January, 2024 to move the
DRAT, challenging Ext.P3 order. Till such time, all further
proceedings, including taking physical possession of the property
shall be deferred.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI
JUDGE
RK
OP (DRT) NO. 563 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 563/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN
SA NO. 375/2022 BEFORE THE DRT I,
ERNAKULAM WITHOUT ANNEXURES
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN S.A.NO.
375/2022 BEFORE THE DRT I, ERNAKULAM
WITHOUT ANNEXURES
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2023
IN SA NO. 375/2022 OF DRT I, ERNAKULAM
