IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 18TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26228 of 2010(C) --------------------------------------- [OA.319/2008 OF DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM] .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. P.V.VIJU, PUTHUSSERIL HOUSE, EDAKOCHI, COCHIN-6, PROPRIETOR, M/S.MARINE VENTURES, 22/1491 EDAKOCHI, COCHIN-6. 2. MRS.P.V.VALSALA DEVI, W/O.P.NANDAKUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS, PADINJAKARATH HOUSE, VENNALA, KOCHI-28. 3. MRS.P.M.DEVAKIAMMA, D/O.MADHAVIAMMA, AGED 78 YEARS, PADINJAKARATH HOUSE, VENNALA, KOCHI-28. BY SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA), SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.MANU GEORGE KURUVILLA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. M/S.CANARA BANK, ASSETS RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BANK, RUKIYABAGH BUILDING, RAVIPURAM, COCHIN-16. 2. THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, COCHIN-16. 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-16. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.S.RAMU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26228 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the 2nd respondent Tribunal to dispose of Ext.P2 petition filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal seeking to set aside the decree in O.A.No.319/2008. Consequent to default committed in repayment of loan availed by the petitioners, the 1st respondent Bank had approached the 2nd respondent Tribunal by filing O.A.No.319/2008. Eventhough the petitioners appeared and contested the matter, subsequently they remained exparte and Ext.P1 final order was issued in the O.A. allowing the 1st respondent Bank to recover a sum of Rs.1,94,95,751.65 with future interest on the principal amount along with quarterly rests from 10.11.2008 onwards. 2. According to the petitioners, they have filed Ext.P2 application seeking to set aside Ext.P1 order which was passed on 15.9.2009. It is submitted that Ext.P2 was filed as early as in November 2009. But, inspite of repeated W.P.(C).26228/10-C -2- adjournments, the 2nd respondent has not disposed of the said application, is the complaint. In execution of Ext.P1 order the 3rd respondent has now initiated steps and the properties which are mortgaged for securing the loan have been put to auction. The petitioners had approached the Bank with a proposal as per Ext.P3 offering 'One Time Settlement' of the arrears. Grievance of the petitioners is that the sale is being pursued without considering such offer submitted as per Ext.P3. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Bank submitted that the sale of immovable properties were notified for sale by the 3rd respondent, on 7.9.2010. But no sale has been taken place and the proclamation now stands adjourned to 4.10.2010. Under the above circumstances I find no reason to interfere in order to interdict with the proceedings now initiated by the 3rd respondent. Huge amounts are due under the loan account and the petitioners have not effected any substantial payments. It is also not proper for this court to enter on merits with respect to Ext.P2 petition which is now pending disposal before the Tribunal. With respect to the offer made by the petitioner for 'One Time Settlement', it is for them to pursue such remedies before the appropriate authority under the 1st respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that the Bank has already considered Ext.P3 and W.P.(C).26228/10-C -3- reply in this regard was given to the petitioners. 4. However, Sri.George Thomas (Mevada), learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners made an appeal to this court for issuing a direction to the 2nd respondent Tribunal for having an expeditious disposal of Ext.P2 petition. It is stated that the said petition is posted to 24.9.2010 for hearing. On the facts and circumstances I am inclined to grant such a relief. 5. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 petition filed seeking to set aside Ext.P1 final order passed in O.A.No.319/2008, if possible, on 24.9.2010 itself or at any rate within a period of two weeks thereafter. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb