Alex Mathew vs The Authorized Officer, State ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5846 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT

                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

     WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945

                        OP (DRT) NO. 183 OF 2023

    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SA 467/2022 OF DEBT RECOVERY
                      TRIBUNAL- 2, ERNAKULAM

PETITIONER/S:



          ALEX MATHEW
          AGED 67 YEARS
          S/O. MATHEW, KUTTIVAYALIL HOUSE, CHAMAMPATHAL P.O.,
          VAZHOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686517

          BY ADVS.
          BABY THOMAS
          GEORGE T.J
          MARIAMMA JOSEPH
          INDRAJITH S KAIMAL
          ALICIA JOSE


RESPONDENT/S:

          THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA
          RASMECCC, 2ND FLOOR, MARETTE TOWER, PALACE ROAD,
          CHANGANACHERRY, PIN - 686102

          BY ADV SHRI.JITHESH MENON, SC, SBI



THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP (DRT) NO. 183 OF 2023
                              2

                           JUDGMENT

The original petition is filed to set aside Exts.P4 and

P5 orders passed in SA No.467/2022 by the Debt

Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam (in short, 'Tribunal') and

until such time to defer coercive proceedings under the

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short,

'SARFAESI Act').

2. The petitioner's case is that, challenging the

proceedings initiated by the respondents, the petitioner

has the above application before the Tribunal. Even

though the petitioner has filed an application to stay the

coercive proceedings, the same has not been considered

by the Tribunal. On the other hand, the respondent is

proceeding against the secured asset of the petitioner,

which is causing prejudice and hardship to him. Hence,

the original petition.

OP (DRT) NO. 183 OF 2023

3. Heard; Sri.Baby Thomas, the learned Counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jithesh Menon, the

learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. Sri.Jithesh Menon, on instructions, submitted that

the stay petition is posted to 19.06.2023. A quietus can be

given to the original petition by directing the Tribunal to

consider and dispose of the stay petition in accordance

with law.

5. Having considered the pleadings and materials on

record and taking note of the submissions made across

the Bar, I deem it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to

consider and dispose of the stay petition in accordance

with law.

Resultantly, I dispose of the original petition as

follows:

(i) The Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam is

directed to consider and dispose of the stay

petition filed in SA No.467/2022, in accordance

with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any OP (DRT) NO. 183 OF 2023

rate on or before 30.06.2023, after affording both

sides an opportunity of being heard.

(ii) Until such time orders are passed in the stay

petition, all further coercive proceedings initiated

by the respondent as against the petitioner shall

stand deferred.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS JUDGE

rkc/24.05.23 OP (DRT) NO. 183 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 183/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S. 13 (2) OF THE ACT DATED 11.04.2022

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER DATED 22.04.2022 OF EXT P1

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 13(4) OF THE ACT DATED 16/06/2022

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 28.10.2022

Exhibit P5 STAY PETITION WITH IA NO. 3037/2022 ON 08.11.2022

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP DRT 476/2022 DATED 01.12.2022