IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP (DRT).No. 987 of 2011(O) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, ARMB BRANCH, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIES OFFICER, K. BHARATHY. BY ADV. SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (KERALA AND LAKSHADWEEP), VTH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI -36, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT OFFICER. 2. C.A MUHAMMED NIZAR, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, CHITTETHU PARAMBU, AYSHA ROAD, THAMMANAM.P.O, KOCHI - 682 032. 3. P.N. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.P.K. NARAYANAN, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, KOTTECANAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI - 682 018. BY THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- O.P(DRT).No.987 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- In this writ petition the petitioner Bank is seeking direction to the 1st respondent tribunal to hear and dispose of Ext.P3 application pending before the said tribunal. The petitioner Bank had sanctioned loan to the 3rd respondent, by securing mortgage on an immovable property owned by the 3rd respondent. Consequent to default committed in repayment, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. Steps taken against the immovable property, which is the secured asset, was challenged by the 3rd respondent by filing WP(C).31838/08 before this court, which was disposed of through Ext.P1. But the 3rd respondent had failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in Ext.P1 judgment. Subsequently, when further steps were initiated, the 3rd respondent along with his wife had again filed another writ petition, WP(C).6146/09. In Ext.P2 judgment, further indulgence was shown by this court directing to keep in abeyance confirmation of sale conducted with respect to the property, subject to payment of a sum of Rs.2 lakhs within 2 OPDRT.987/11 -2- weeks and the balance on or before 27.3.2009. Even the condition stipulated in Ext.P2 judgment was not complied with. 2. It is stated that, in spite of repeated approaches made by the 3rd respondent before this court, the proceedings was again challenged before the 1st respondent tribunal by the 2nd respondent herein, who is a third party, on the basis of an allegation that he has got some interest on the property in question by virtue of an alleged sale agreement executed with the 3rd respondent. The said application filed before the 1st respondent as per Ext.P3, now stands registered on the files of the tribunal as S.A.78/2009. 3. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent tribunal had issued an interim order restraining the petitioner from proceeding with further steps of recovery. It is stated that the petitioner had entered appearance and filed counter to the stay petition as well as written statement in the securitisation application, as early as on 30.3.2009. But the 2nd respondent is unnecessarily protracting the matter contending that there is a suit filed by him against the 3rd respondent seeking specific performance of the contract. However it is contended that the suit has already been decreed much earlier. But the 2nd respondent is deliberately protracting the matter without OPDRT.987/11 -3- producing copy of the judgment before the tribunal. 4. Contention of the petitioner Bank is that there is inordinate delay on the part of the 1st respondent in disposing S.A.78/09. Counsel for the petitioner points out that Section 17 (5) of the SARFAESI Act which prescribes time limit for disposal of applications filed under Section 17(1). It is pointed out that due to the inordinate delay caused in disposing the matter and due to the absolute stay granted by the tribunal, the petitioner is prevented from realising huge amounts due from the 3rd respondent. 5. In spite of service of notice from this court, respondents 2 and 3 had not entered appearance and not chosen to contest the matter. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the 1st respondent tribunal for an early disposal of the matter. As mentioned above, the statute prescribes a time limit for disposal of the application filed under Section 17(1), as contemplated under Section 17(5) of the SARFAESI Act. Needless to say that the 1st respondent tribunal should take all earnest efforts to abide by the said provisions, to the possible extent. 6. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ OPDRT.987/11 -4- petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent tribunal to take all earnest efforts for consideration and disposal of S.A.78/09 pending on the files of that tribunal at the earliest possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb