Kerala High Court
Sasidharan P vs Authorised Officer, ,Indian Overseas ... on 6 February, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
OP (DRT) NO. 61 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SA 473/2022 OF DEBT RECOVERY
TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:
SASIDHARAN P
AGED 63 YEARS, S/O RAGHAVAN NAIR,
SREENIKETHAN, KERALASSERY VILLAGE,
KERALASSERY P.O.,PIN 678 641.
NOW RESIDING AT NO. 45 RAGHAVAM,
VENKATESWARA GARDENS, NEAR MERCY COLLEGE,
PALAKKAD. PIN 678006, PIN - 678006.
BY ADVS.
AMAL GEORGE
MANU GEORGE KURUVILLA
PARAMESWARAN S.D.
RESPONDENTS:
1 AUTHORISED OFFICER,
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH,
IOB BUILDING, NEAR KAVITHA THEATRE,
MG ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 683035.
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, 1ST FLOOR,
T.B ROAD, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD - 679101.
3 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION
KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPALLY NAGAR AVENUE,
CHERIYAKADAVANTHRA P.O., PANAMPALLY NAGAR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN 682036, REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIVISIONAL RETAIL HEAD, PIN - 682036.
4 RUBEENA K.K
D/O K KOYAMOM, KUNDANI HOUSE, VENGALUR,
THALAKKAD, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676102.
OP(DRT)No.61 of 2024
:2:
5 THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL 1 ERNAKULAM
5TH FLOOR, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD BUILDING,
PANAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682036,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUNIL SHANKER, STANDING COUNSEL
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(DRT)No.61 of 2024
:3:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2024
The petitioner, who is aggrieved by Ext.P4 final order
passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Ernakulam on
30.01.2024, is before this Court invoking Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking to direct respondents 1 and 2
not to confirm the sale or register the Sale Certificate in
favour of the 4th respondent in respect of the sale of the
property of the petitioner that took place on 10.10.2022, for a
period of 30 days to enable the petitioner to challenge the
final order passed in S.A.No.473 of 2022 by the Debts
Recovery Tribunal-1, Ernakulam dated 30.01.2024 before the
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.
2. The petitioner states that the property belonging to
the petitioner, which is worth more than ₹10 Crores has been
sold for a pittance of approximately ₹3 Crores. The petitioner
has a genuine grievance regarding the valuation of the
property. The sale conducted by the 1 st respondent-Bank is
highly illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has a very fair
chance to get the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal set
aside in appeal.
3. If pending filing and hearing of the appeal, the
Bank conveys the property to the 4th respondent, it will create
unnecessary third party interest and the petitioner is likely to
be burdened with discharging further amounts towards stamp
duty. In the facts of the case, it would be only just and proper
that this Court pass an order directing to defer all further
proceedings for a limited period so that the petitioner can
approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and obtain
interim orders.
4. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf
of the Indian Overseas Bank and resisted the writ petition.
The Standing Counsel submitted that the sale was conducted
in the year 2022 and the sale now stands confirmed.
Therefore, at this stage, there cannot be any interim order.
The petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 18 of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner
has to approach the appellate authority. No OP(DRT) is
maintainable under the circumstances of the case,
contended the Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent.
5. Heard.
6. The sale in question took place on 10.10.2022.
The petitioner's S.A No.473 of 2023 was dismissed by this
Court on 30.01.2024. The petitioner has already obtained a
certified copy of Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal. In the
circumstances, it is for the petitioner to approach the Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal and seek further relief in the
matter. To enable the petitioner to approach the Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal, an interim arrangement cannot
be made through a petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
The OP(DRT) is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ams
APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 61/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT
DATED 21/02/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE
APPROVED VALUER SRI. K SURESH MENON
Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT
DATED 20/09/2022 SUBMITTED BY ER.
GEORGE F. CHETHALAN, CHARTERED
ENGINEER, APPROVED AND REGISTERED
VALUER
Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED
29/03/2023 SUBMITTED BY ER. NIPUN
PRAKASH A CHARTERED ENGINEER AND
APPROVED VALUER
Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE DRT 1 ERNAKULAM IN SA 473
OF 2022 DATED 30/01/2024
