Kerala High Court
M/S. Jis International Exports Pvt. Ltd vs Debt Recovery Tribunal-1 Ernakulam on 19 April, 2024
Author: K. Babu
Bench: K. Babu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 5TH MAGHA, 1945
OP (DRT) NO. 351 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SA NO.224 OF 2021 OF
DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:
1 M/S. JIS INTERNATIONAL EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,
28/60, FIRST FLOOR,G G-107, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,
EMAKULAM, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, DOMINIC
SEBASTIAN, PIN - 682036
2 DOMINIC SEBASTIAN,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. MATHEW SEBASTIAN, PAN :AEMPS
1155G .15EIRDS AVENUE ONE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682036
3 MRS. GEENA DOMINIC,
AGED 61 YEARS
W/O. DOMINIC SEBASTIAN PAN:ACZPD6511C,15E1-RDS
AVENUE ONE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM., PIN -
682036
4 M/S ALLIANCE MARITIME PVT. LTD.,
CINU 63090KL 1999PTC012787 28/60 , A-1,1ST
FLOOR G-107, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. DOMINIC
SEBASTIAN, PIN - 682036
BY ADVS.
C.S.ULLAS
GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1 ERNAKULAM,
5TH FLCOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,
ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PIN -
682036
2 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CENTRAL OFFICE,
6TH FLOOR, ANNEX BUILDING, 763, ANNA SALAI,
O.P.(DRT) No.351 of 2023
.2..
CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
& MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 600002
3 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,
ERNAKULAM MAIN BRANCH, M.GROAD, ERNAKULAM-REP.BY
AUTHORISED OFFICER AND ASST.GENERAL MANAGER MR.
S.PALANIVEL, PIN - 682015
BY ADVS.
SUNIL SHANKER
VIDYA GANGADHARAN
JERIN GEORGE
SANDHRA.S
THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(DRT) No.351 of 2023
.3..
K. BABU, J
-------------------------------------------------
O.P.(DRT) No.351 of 2023
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
The challenge in this Original Petition is to the order
dated 18.08.2023 in I.A.No.868/2022 in S.A.No.224/2021
passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam.
Petitioner No.1 is a company doing marine exports.
Petitioner No.2 is the Managing Director of petitioner
No.1 company. Petitioner No.3, one among the Directors
of the Company, is the wife of petitioner No.2. Petitioner
No.4 is a company managed by petitioners 2 and 3.
2. The petitioner company availed a cash credit of
Rs.500 Lakhs and working capital term loan of 930 Lakhs
from the Indian Overseas Bank, Ernakulam Main Branch
(respondent No.3). Alleging default in repayment of the
.4..
loan, the Bank initiated proceedings against the
petitioners under the Securitisation & Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act'). The Bank
issued possession notice dated 27.10.2021 intimating
symbolic possession of various properties owned by the
petitioners. The Bank also issued prohibitory order dated
30.10.2021 to the registered tenant of the petitioner
company in respect of the plant and machinery at Aroor
in Alappuzha District leading to the tenant ceased to pay
monthly rent amounting to Rs. 11,70,000/- to the
petitioners.
3. Challenging the measures taken by the Bank
under the SARFAESI Act and the prohibitory order issued
against the tenant of the petitioner company, the
petitioners filed S.A.No.224/2021 before the Debt
Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam (respondent No.1). After
.5..
the institution of S.A.No.224/2021, the Bank approached
the Chief Judicial Magistrate Courts at Alappuzha and
Ernakulam seeking assistance to take physical possession
of the properties owned and possessed by the petitioners.
4. As there was no regular sitting in the Tribunal,
the petitioners approached this Court by filing O.P.(DRT)
No.1 of 2022 seeking the relief to keep in abeyance the
coercive steps taken against the petitioners until the
disposal of S.A.No.224/2021. This Court granted a stay of
coercive measures on condition of payment of Rs.50
Lakhs.
5. The petitioners complied the order after
obtaining extension of time from this Court. O.P.(DRT)
No.1/2022 was disposed of by granting stay till
23.04.2022 so as to enable the petitioners to approach
and obtain necessary orders from the Tribunal.
Thereafter, the petitioners made an application seeking
.6..
amendment in S.A.No.224 of 2021 for the purpose of
incorporating additional pleadings and grounds to
challenge the proceedings under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act initiated before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Courts. The petitioners filed I.A.No.868/2022
in S.A.No.224 of 2021 seeking stay of taking physical
possession of the properties under the SARFAESI Act.
On 07.07.2022, the Tribunal granted a conditional stay on
payment of Rs. 5,37,82,000/-, in two equal monthly
instalments. It was also stipulated that in the event of
failure in paying the instalments, I.A.No.868/2022 would
stand closed.
6. The petitioners preferred a review petition as
R.P.No.2/2022, seeking review of the order dated
07.07.2022 in I.A.No.868/2022. The Tribunal dismissed
the review petition. Challenging the orders in
I.A.No.868/2022 and R.P.No.2/2022, the petitioners filed
.7..
W.P.(C) No.31891/2022 under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India before this Court. This Court by way
of judgment dated 24.05.2023 set aside the order in
I.A.No.868/2022 and directed the Tribunal to consider the
I.A. afresh within two months of the date of receipt of the
copy of the judgment, in accordance with law, after
adverting to the contentions taken in the S.A.. The
Tribunal passed Ext.P21 order pursuant to the directions
of this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.31891 of 2022.
The said order is under challenge in this Original Petition.
7. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. George
Poonthottam and Sri. Sunil Shankar A., the learned
counsel appearing for the Bank.
8. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. George
Poonthottam made the following submissions:-
(1)The Tribunal has not considered the directions of this
Court in letter and spirit in the sense that the order does
.8..
not reflect what was sought to be considered by this
Court.
(2)The Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the intention of
the legislature was to dispose of the applications within a
time frame as provided in sub-section (5) of Section 17 of
the SARFAESI Act with intent to protect the borrowers
also.
(3)The Tribunal has not taken into account the non-
compliance of Section 26B of the SARFAESI Act.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank
Sri. Sunil Shankar made the following submissions:
(1)The order under challenge is appealable under Section
18 of the SARFAESI Act.
(2)The petitioners have not established any tenable
grounds to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
.9..
10. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
order of the Tribunal is not alive to the contentions raised
by the petitioners in the securitization application. The
learned Senior Counsel submitted that this Court while
disposing W.P.(C) No.31891 of 2022 observed that the
Tribunal has to consider the merits of the contentions
taken by both sides applying the well settled principles
governing the grant of interim relief namely (i) strong
prima fiacie case; (ii) balance of convenience; and (iii)
irreparable injury. The submission of the learned Senior
Counsel is that the Tribunal has not applied its mind to
the principles discussed above while disposing of the
application seeking stay of the proceedings under the
SARFAESI Act against the petitioners.
11. Relying on Section 17(5) of the SARFAESI Act
and Rule 12 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure)
Rules, 1993, and the declaration of law by the Supreme
.10..
Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hilli
Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Ltd [(2020) 5 SCC
757], the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
Debts Recovery Tribunals shall dispose of applications
within 60 days from the date of presentation of the same
and the limitation period of 30 days prescribed in Rule 12
of the DRT Rules, for filing written statement is
mandatory and only in exceptional cases and in special
circumstances, the said period can be extended by a
period not exceeding 15 days. The learned Senior
Counsel submitted that the intention of the legislature is
to protect the debtors also which is very evident from the
statutory limitations.
12. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted
that in the present case, there is no substantial
compliance of Section 26D of the SARFAESI Act which
prevents the creditor bank from exercising the rights of
.11..
enforcement of securities under Chapter III of the Act.
The learned Senior Counsel relied on Goverdhan Prasad
Atal v. Assam Gramin Vikash Bank and Others [2021
KHC 2202] in support of his contentions.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank
Sri. Sunil Shankar submitted that the order impugned is
appealable under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act and the
petitioners have not placed before the Court anything
that warrants interference of this Court under Article 227
of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel for the
Bank further submitted that the Tribunal has considered
all the relevant contentions raised by both sides while
disposing of the interlocutory application.
14. The learned Counsel relied on Varghese A.P. v.
Chief Manager, Vijaya Bank and others [2019 (4) KLJ
956] and Sama Rubbers v. South Indian Bank Ltd
[2023 (4) KLJ 692] in support of his contentions.
.12..
15. Any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal
under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is appealable
under Section 18 of the Act. In Varghese A.P., a Division
Bench of this Court held that an order passed in an
interim application also falls within the ambit of Section
18 of the SARFAESI Act. A Single Bench of this Court in
Sama Rubber following Varghese A.P reiterated that an
order passed in an interim application is appealable
under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
16. The essential challenge raised by the learned
Senior Counsel is that the order of the Tribunal is not
alive to the contentions raised in the Securitisation
Application. The learned Senior Counsel would submit
that the Tribunal has not complied with the directions
issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.31891 of 2022.
17. While disposing of W.P.(C) No.31891 of 2022,
this Court observed thus:-
.13..
"12........Whether any amount is to be deposited or the
extent of amount to be deposited will depend on the
prima facie appreciation by the Tribunal on the merits of
the contentions taken by both sides and on the application
of the well settled principles governing the grant of
interim relief namely (i) strong prima facie case; (ii)
balance of convenience; and (iii) irreparable injury. While
it may not be necessary to the Tribunal to write a detailed
order touching upon merits of each and every contention
taken before the Tribunal as well as the response by the
banks/financial institutions to such contentions, the order
of the Tribunal must, on a reading, indicate that it was
alive to the contentions raised in the Securitisation
Application."
18. The operative portion of the judgment in W.P.(C)
No.31891 of 2022 reads thus:-
(ii) Ext.P6 order in W.P (C) No. 31891 of 2022 is quashed.
I.A No.868 of 2022 in S.A No.224 of 2021 will stand
restored to the file of the DRT-I, Ernakulam. The Tribunal
shall reconsider I.A No.868 of 2022 in S.A No.224 of 2021
afresh, and in accordance with the law and after affording
an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Status quo as on
today shall be maintained till fresh orders are passed as
directed above. The tribunal shall endeavor to pass fresh
.14..
orders after adverting to the contentions taken and
having regard to the observations in this judgment, within
a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this Judgment.
19. The contentions raised by the petitioners while
moving I.A.No.868 of 2022, contained in paragraphs 4,5
and 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the application,
are extracted below.
"4. It is submitted that the stay was in operation
for the period covering from 05.01.2022 to
02.03.2022 but the defendant bank suppressing the
above fact that the stay granted by the Hon'ble High
Court of Kerala was in operation, filed a petition
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the
Hon'ble Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special
Court for the trial of criminal cases against sitting
and former MP's/ MLA's of the state) as M.C Nc.
451/2022 seeking assistance of the court to take
physical possession of the secured asset. The
Hon'ble Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Ernakulam as per Annexure-A9 order dated
.15..
22.02.2022 appointed an Advocate Commissioner to
take physical possession of the property within 14
days and directed to file a report on or before
04.04.2022.
5. Similarly the defendant bank had preferred
application under Section 14 before Hon'ble Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha as M.C No. 20/2022
seeking assistance of the court to take physical
possession of the secured asset. The Hon'ble Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha, as per Annexure-
A10 order dated 11.01.2022 appointed an Advocate
Commissioner to take physical possession of the
property and directed to file a report on or before
17.02.2022.
6. It is submitted that the act of the defendant
bank moving Annexure A9 and A10 applications
under Section 14 of the Act suppressing the
operation of stay by the Hon'ble High Court of
Kerala amounts to contempt and that the applicant is
preferring a contempt petition raising the aforesaid
illegality. As a matter of fact it is submitted that the
Advocate commissioner appointed as per Annexure
.16..
A9 had issued Annexure-A11 notice dated
10.05.2022 stating that he will make a field visit on
the scheduled property on 10.05.2022. The advocate
commissioner visited the property on the very same
day and informed that she will take possession of the
property immediately. The act done by the defendant
bank is illegal and that they are taking all hasty
steps for the illegal possession of the applicant's
property."
20. The challenge to the application on the side of
the respondent-Bank is discernible from paragraph 3 of
the impugned order which is extracted below:-
"3. The Counsel appearing for the respondents
submitted that the petitioners after having availed
cash credit facility of Rs.500 Lakhs and a sum of
Rs.9,30,00,000/- as Working capital Term loan,
committed default in repayment of the outstanding
loan due and that therefore SARFAESI measures
were initiated by the respondents and the
respondents filed applications under Section 14 of
the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Chief Judicial
.17..
Magistrate, Ernakulam and before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Thodupuzha for taking physical
possession of the property and that the Hon'ble High
Court of Kerala had directed in O.P. (DRT) No.1/2022
that the petitioners shall not be dispossessed
pursuant to possession notice dated 27.10.2021 and
that petitioners have not been dispossessed from the
secured asset and that conditional order passed by
the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala was only for a
period of eight weeks subject to paymentment of
Rs.50 Lakhs on or before 06.02.2022 and that the
said condition was not complied with and that the
petitioners presented the draft for Rs.50 Lakhs only
on 17.3.2022 and that due to non-compliance of the
direction, interim order was no longer in force and
that subsequent direction was given by the Hon'ble
High Court of Kerala to deposit an amount of Rs.50
Lakhs on 24.3.2022 granting stay of dispossession for
a period of one month so as to enable the petitioners
to move this Tribunal for appropriate relief in the
pending SA and that mandatory requirements has
been complied with in respect of the measures
initiated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002
and that petitioners have not established any prima
.18..
facie case and that balance of convenience only in
favour of the respondents and that therefore the
petition may be dismissed with costs."
21. In paragraphs 4 to 6 of the impugned order, the
Tribunal has considered the rival contentions. The
relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted
below:-
"4. What has to be considered in this petition is as to
whether SARFAESI measures were initiated by the
respondents under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002
during the subsistence of interim order granted by the
Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P (DRT) No.1/2022 and
as to whether Annexure-A9 order dated 22.2.2022 passed
in M.C. No.451/2022 on the file of the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam and Annexure - A10
order dated 11.01.2022 passed in M.C. No.20/2022 on
the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha suffer
from any infirmity or not.
5. It is seen from the perusal of the order of the Hon'ble
High Court of Kerala dated 05.01.2022, which is filed as
document No.1 by the petitioners that there is a clear
observation that the petitioners shall not be dispossessed
.19..
pursuant to Ext.P4 for a period of eight weeks on
condition that the petitioners deposit an amount of Rs.50
Lakhs and that they shall not be dispossessed until then.
As rightly submitted by the counsel for the respondents,
since the conditional order passed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Kerala in O.P. (DRT) No.1/2022 for payment of
Rs.50 Lakhs within the stipulated period was not
complied with by the petitioners, the interim order was
no longer in force. However, pursuant to the direction
given by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala on 23.2.2022
(copy of order is filed as document No.2 by the
petitioners' side) as per order in I.A. No.4/2022 in O.P.
(DRT) No.1/2022, the petitioners were permitted to
deposit the aforesaid amount by way of cheque. It is
observed in the aforesaid judgment that once the
petitioners deposited an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs on
24.3.2022, the petitioners shall not be disposed from the
property for a period of one month so as to enable the
petitioners to move this Tribunal. Thus it is evident that
the above order will be in force till the petitioners
approached this Tribunal for appropriate relief in the SA.
It is seen from the perusal of the orders, Annexure-A9
and A10 that order in M.C. No.451/2021 was passed on
22.2.2022 and that order in M.C. No.20/2022 was passed
11.01.2022 during which period the stay granted by the
.20..
Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P. (DRT) No.1/2022
was not in force.
6. Apart from the aforesaid contention, the petitioners
have not stated in their affidavit filed along with the
petition as to whether the affidavit filed by the
respondents in M.C. No.451/2021 on the file of the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam
and in M.C. No.20/2022 on the file of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha are not in compliance
with the mandatory requirements stipulated under
Section 14 (1)(i) to (ix) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. There
is also no specific averments in the affidavit of the
petitioners that the orders passed in the aforesaid M.C.
Nos.451/2021 and 20/2022 is not in consonance with the
mandatory requirements stipulated under Section 14 (1)
(i) to (ix) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It is seen from the
order, Annexure-A9 that the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam after having
perused the affidavit and the documents filed by the
respondents and having satisfied over the same, passed
the order appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking
physical possession of the secured asset. A perusal of
Annexure-A10 order also shows that the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha after having
perused the affidavit and the documents filed by the
respondents and having satisfied over the same, passed
.21..
the order appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking
physical possession of the secured asset. Therefore this
Tribunal does not find any infirmity in the orders,
Annexure - A9 and A10 passed. The petitioners have
failed to make out a prima facie case so as to get the
relief sought for in the petition."
22. It cannot be held that the Tribunal has exercised
its jurisdiction in a manner negating justice. It is difficult
to hold that the approach adopted by the Tribunal has
occasioned a failure of justice. It is also difficult to hold
that the Tribunal failed to advert to the contentions taken
and the directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No.31891 of
2022.
23. On the power of this Court while exercising
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court in The
Kerala Plantations v. South Indian Bank Ltd [O.P.
(DRT) No.306 of 2023] held thus:-
.22..
"14. In Waryam Singh and another vs.
Amarnath and another [AIR 1954 SC 215], Shalini
Shyam Shetty and another vs.Rajendra Shankar
Patil [ (2010) 8 SCC 329], M/s.Garment Craft vs.
Prakash Chand Goel [(2022) 4 SCC 181] and a host
of other judicial precedents the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has delineated the powers of the High Courts under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled
that the said power is to be exercised only to keep the
Courts of District Judiciary/ Tribunals within their
bounds of authority and to see that they do their duty as
expected of them in a legal manner. The power is
restricted to the cases of serious dereliction of duty and
flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law and
justice, where if this Court does not interfere, a grave
injustice will remain uncorrected. But, this does not
mean that the said power is to be exercised
indiscriminately, that too interfere with discretionary
orders.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank
Ltd vs. Naveen Mathew Philip (2023 LiveLaw (SC)
320), after adverting to a myriad of earlier judicial
pronouncements rendered under the Act, has
categorically declared that High Courts shall not, unless
in extra ordinary circumstances, interfere with
proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and
.23..
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002, in writ proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
`
24. The SARFAESI Act is a self contained Code.
The Statute provides an effective remedy to challenge the
proceedings under the SARFAESI Act by an aggrieved
person. In the light of the alternative statutory remedy
available to the petitioners, I am not inclined to entertain
the Original Petition exercising the power of
superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
25. Now coming to the contentions raised by the
learned Senior Counsel relying on sub-section (5) of
Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and sub-rule (3) of Rule
12 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules,
1993. As per sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the
SARFAESI Act, any application made under sub-section
.24..
(1) shall be dealt with by the Debts Recovery Tribunal as
expeditiously as possible and disposed of within 60 days
from the date of such application. Proviso to sub-section
(5) of Section 17 says that the Debts Recovery Tribunal
may, from time to time, extend the said period for reasons
to be recorded in writing, so, however, that the total
period of pendency of the application with the Debts
Recovery Tribunal, shall not exceed four months from the
date of making of such application made under sub-
section (1). Sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 of the Debts Recovery
Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, provides that the
defendant may, within a period of thirty days from the
date of service of summons, file two complete sets of
written statement including claim for set off or counter
claim, if any, along with documents in a paper book form.
Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 further provides that if the
defendant fails to file the written statement of his
.25..
defence, including claim for set-off or counter claim under
sub-rule(1), if any, within the period of thirty days, the
Presiding Officer may in exceptional cases and special
circumstances to be recorded in writing, extend the
period, by such further period not exceeding fifteen days.
Sub-rule (3) makes it clear that only in exceptional cases
and special circumstances, the time to file written
statement by the defendant can be extended to a period
not exceeding fifteen days.
26. The speedy disposal of the disputes between
the creditor and debtor is the intention of the Statute as
submitted by the learned Senior Counsel. The mandatory
nature of the limitation period for filing reply/response/
written statement indicates that it is made for protecting
the interest of the debtors also. The Debts Recovery
Tribunals are required to follow the mandate provided in
sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Act and Rule 12 of the
.26..
Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, in the
disposal of the applications.
27. The learned Senior Counsel further focussed on
the mandate of Section 26D of the SARFAESI Act. As per
section 26D of the Act, no secured creditor shall be
entitled to exercise the rights of enforcement of securities
under Chapter III unless the security interest created in
its favour by the borrower has been registered with the
Central Registry. The petitioners contend that there is no
substantial compliance with Section 26D in the present
case. The petitioners have the liberty to raise these
contentions in the statutory Forums.
Having held that the petitioners have an alternative
statutory remedy, the Original Petition stands dismissed
without prejudice to their right to work out their
remedies in accordance with law. It is made clear that I
have not made any observations on the merit of the
.27..
contentions raised by the petitioners in I.A.No.868/2022
in S.A.No.224/2021.
Sd/-
K.BABU, JUDGE
kkj
.28..
APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 351/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF SA 224/2021 IN DRT-1
ERNAKULAM DATED NIL
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.3.2022
IN OP DRT 1/2022.
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED SA
224/2021 IN DRT-1 ERNAKULAM DATED NIL
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE IA1081/2022 IN DRT-1
ERNAKULAM 1/6/2022
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE IA 868/2022 IN SA
224/2022 IN DRT-1ERNAKULAM DATED NIL
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.7.2022
IN IA 868/2022 IN SA 224/2021 IN DRT-
1ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION
RP 2/2022 IN SA 224/2021 IN DRT-
1ERNAKULAM 5/8/2022
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
30.9.2022 IN REVIEW PETITION RP
NO.2/2022IN SA 224/2021 IN DRT-
1ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE IA 1954/2022 (WITHOUT
ANNEXURES) FOR AMENDMENT IN SA
224/2021 IN DRT-1 ERNAKULAM DATED
10/9/22
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE IA 1955/2022 (WITHOUT
ANNEXURES) FOR STAY IN IN SA 224/2021
IN DRT-1ERNAKULAM 9/9/2022
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF IA 1985/2022 FOR
DIRECTION DATED 14.9.2022 IN SA
224/2021 IN DRT-1 ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
.29..
22.9.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN
SA 224/ IN DRT-1 ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF IA 2393/2022 FOR
AMENDMENT (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) FILED
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
5/10/2022
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION TO INITIATE
CONTEMPT CMP NO.3209/2023 DATED
15/06/2023
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION NOTICE DATED
14.9.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 24.5.2023
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF LIST OF DOCUMENTS
(WITHOUT ENCLOSURES) DATED 25.7.2023
FILED BY 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE DRT-1
ERNAKULAM.(MISTAKENLY SHOWN AS FILED
BY THE APPLICANT BANK
Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF LIST OF DOCUMENTS DATED
27.7.2023 (WITHOUT ENCLOSURES) FILED
BY PETITIONERS BEFORE DRT-1 ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF PROCEEDINGS IN
SA 224/2021 IN DRT-1 ERNAKULAM
DOWNLOADED FROM E DRT WEBSITE .
Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.8.2023
IN IA 868/2022 IN SA 224/2022 PASSED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P22 COPY OF CERSAL REPORT DATED 3.8.2022
(ASSET ID 2000] 728989) IN RESPECT
PROPERTY IN MC 20/2022 IN CJM COURT
ALAPPUZHA
Exhibit P23 COPY OF CERSAL REPORT DATED 3.8.2022
(ASSET ID 200017455213) IN RESPECT TO
PROPERTY IN MC 451 /2021 ACJM COURT
ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P24 COPY OF CERSAL REPORT DATED 3.8.2022
.30..
(ASSET ID 200017456202) IN RESPECT
PROPERTY IN MC 451/2021 ACJM COURT
ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P25 COPY OF CERSAL REPORT DATED 3.8.2022
(ASSET ID 20008367740) IN RESPECT OF
PROPERTY IN MC 20/2022 IN CJM COURT
THODUPUZHA
Exhibit P26 COPY OF CERSAL REPORT DATED 14.7.2022
(ASSET ID 20008368429)IN RESPECT TO
PROPERTY IN MC 20/2022 IN CJM COURT
THODUPUZHA
Exhibit P27 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM REPORT DATED
27.8.2022 BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER
IN MC 451 /2021 IN THE FILE OF ACJM
COURT, ERNAKULAM
