IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 OP (DRT).No. 224 of 2011(O) --------------------------- SA.750/2010 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ KAJA HUSSAIN, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KAFFAR, KANJIRAVALLI KALAM, THENKARA P.O., MANNARKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INDIAN BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-35, REP.BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER. 2. MR.RAMDAS, (WHO WAS THE MANAER OF THE INDIAN BANK IN THE YEAR 2007), AKATHETHARA BRANCH, C/O.INDIAN BANK, AKATHETHARA BRANCH, MALAMPUZHA ROAD, PALAKKAD-678 001 3. M/S.IFX CREATIVE MEDIA, 5/345, PAITHRUKAM, DURGA LANE, PUTHUR, PALAKKAD-678 651. 4. MR.K.A.SHAMSUDDIN, S/O.ADBUL RAHIMAN, PALAKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUR P.O., PATHIRAPALA, PALAKKAD-679 302. 5. MR.K.A.SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O.ABDUL WAHAB, KANJIRA VALLIKALAM HOUSE, THENKARA P.O., MANNARKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 761. 6. MR.MANOJ KURIAN, CHERAMATTOM HOUSE, CHUNGATHARA P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 334 OP (DRT).No. 224 of 2011 7. MRS.BALKIS, W/O.ABDUL KAFFAR, KANJIRA VALLIKALAM HOUSE, THENKARA P.O., MANNARKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 761 8. MRS.SEENATH, D/O.ABDUL KAFFAR, KANJIRAVALLI KALAM, THENKARA, MANNARKAD, PALAKAD-678 761. 9. THE REGISTRAR, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM- 682 036 ADV.MR S. ESWARAN - SC THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- O.P.(DRT)No.224 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal in proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act initiated by the first respondent bank against him for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner to the first respondent bank. Twice the matter was taken in an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Tribunal has now passed Ext.P7 order refusing to interfere with the sale proceedings initiated by the bank pursuant to the proceedings under the Act. On a reading of Ext.P7 order, I do not find any irregularity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, it is for him to take it up in an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal appropriately. Without prejudice to that right, this original petition (DRT) is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd