Smitha Shaji vs The Authorized Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 4639 Ker

Kerala High Court

Smitha Shaji vs The Authorized Officer 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. 53 OF 2024
         ORDER DATED 28.12.2023 IN UNNUMBERED SA
                BEFORE THE DRT-2, ERNAKULAM


PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS:

    1    SMITHA SHAJI
         AGED 47 YEARS
         W/O. SHAJI, MAROTTICKALHOUSE,
         MANAPPURAM P0 CHERTHALA,
         ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688526
    2    SHAJI MK
         AGED 52 YEARS
         S/O. KARUNAKARAN, MAROTTICKALHOUSE,
         MANAPPURAM PO CHERTHALA,
         ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688526

         BY ADVS.
         AYPE JOSEPH
         MERIN ROSE


RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

         THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
         UNION BANK OF INDIA, CHERTHALA BRANCH,
         KARUNAKARABLDG, AC ROAD, CHERTHALA, PIN - 688536

         SRI.A.S.P. KURUP, 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.53 of 2024


                              2


                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of February, 2024

The petitioners, who have obtained financial advance

from the Union Bank of India, are before this Court seeking to

direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal to pass an order declaring

that the defendant cannot proceed with taking possession of

the property as per Ext.P3 order and to set aside Ext.P3 order

as invalid.

2. The petitioners state that as a part of the

proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002 initiated against the petitioners, the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Alappuzha appointed an Advocate Commissioner

to take possession of the secured asset mortgaged by the

petitioners. The petitioners were not served with a notice of

Section 14 proceedings or of the Advocate Commissioner. On

coming to know of appointment of the Advocate

Commissioner, the petitioners filed Ext.P1 SA, which was not

numbered by the Tribunal. The Registrar of the Debts

Recovery Tribunal-2, Ernakulam declined to register the SA

as per order dated 28.12.2023.

3. The petitioners state that the petitioners have

approached the Presiding Officer filing Ext.P4 Chamber

Appeal against the order dated 28.12.2023 of the Registrar of

the Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Ernakulam. However, the

Presiding Officer has not passed any orders on Ext.P4

Appeal. In the meanwhile, the respondent is threatening the

petitioners with coercive proceedings. The Advocate

Commissioner is likely to take possession of the property of

the petitioners at any time now. Unless this Court interferes in

the matter and passes appropriate order, the petitioners will

be put to irreparable loss and injury, contends the counsel for

the petitioners.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned Standing Counsel representing the Bank.

5. Ext.P3 is the order passed by the Registrar of the

Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Ernakulam. The petitioners' SA

has not been numbered on the ground that the petitioners

have not approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal within 45

days of passing of Ext.P2 order.

6. It is to be noted that the specific case of the

petitioners is that the petitioners have not been issued with

notice of the Presiding Officer. If that be so, whether delay has

to be counted from the date of knowledge of the proceedings

by the petitioners, is a matter to be considered by the

Tribunal.

7. At any rate, the petitioners have preferred Ext.P4

Chamber Appeal No.2 of 2024. In the facts of the case, it

would be only just and proper that the Presiding Officer is

directed to dispose of Ext.P4 Chamber Appeal as

expeditiously as possible, taking into consideration the fact

that the Advocate Commissioner has already issued notice to

the petitioners.

The O.P (DRT) is therefore disposed of directing the

Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Ernakulam to consider Ext.P4

Chamber Appeal filed by the petitioners and pass appropriate

orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate,

within a period of ten days.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk

APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 53/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE UN-NUMBERED SECURITIZATION APPLICATION FILED DATED 22/12/2023 ,BEFORE DRT 2 ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP 2889/2023 IN M.C. 441/2023. OF CJM ALAPPUZHA, DATED 11/10/2023 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN UNNUMBERED S.A.DATED 28/12/2023 BY THE REGISTRAR DRT 2 ERNAKULAM Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL 2 OF 2024 DATED 4/1/2024 BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER DRT 2 ERNAKULAM.