IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 OP (DRT).No. 1713 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------------- SA.NO.704/2010 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS -------------------- GANGAJITH, S/O.GANGADHARAN NAIR, EANICKAL HOUSE, KOZHIPPALLI KARAYMA, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM.P.O., MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.ULLAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BEACH ROAD, ALAPPUZHA.PIN-688 001. 2. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, MAVELIKKARA BRANCH, MAVELIKKARA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.PIN-690 101. 3. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, VTH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.PIN-682 036 R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH,SC THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(DRT)NO.1713/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE S.A.704/2010 BEFORE D.R.T. ERNAKULAM. P2 COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.3048/2010 P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21/5/2011 BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- O.P(DRT) No.1713 of 2011-O ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), and also against Ext.P2 conditional order issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, granting interim stay pending disposal of a Securitisation Application filed by the petitioner, subject to condition insisting for payment of a sum of Rs.3 lakhs in three instalments. 2. It is evident that the petitioner had defaulted repayments of a term loan as well as a car loan availed from respondents 1 and 2. Consequently, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was initiated and the petitioner had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal invoking Section 17 (1). In an interlocutory application filed seeking stay of further proceedings, the Debt Recovery Tribunal had issued Ext.P2 order whereby the condition as stated above was O.P(DRT) No.1713 of 2011-O 2 imposed. Since the petitioner had failed to comply with the condition, respondents 1 and 2 had proceeded with further steps and the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court was approached invoking Section 14(1). An Advocate Commissioner was appointed by that Court, who had issued Ext.P3 notice, requiring the petitioner to handover possession of the property in question, which is the secured asset. 3. Contention of the petitioner is that, the condition imposed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal through Ext.P2 is highly unreasonable and unjustifiable and the petitioner could not comply with such condition, considering his present financial position. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this Court to restrain dispossession of the property, pending disposal of the Securitisation Application by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 4. It is evident that the petitioner had invoked the statutory remedy provided under the SARFAESI Act, and the Securitisation Application is pending disposal before the O.P(DRT) No.1713 of 2011-O 3 Debt Recovery Tribunal. I do not find any merit to interfere with the interim order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which is issued in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested on that Tribunal. As far as the condition imposed in Ext.P2, it could not be contended that there is any error of jurisdiction which invite interference by this court, in order to exercise power under Article 227. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, this court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, at the time of admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner made persuasive submissions seeking stay of dispossession, on the basis of an undertaking made that the petitioner is ready and willing to withdraw the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and is willing to pay off the entire liability due under the loan account, in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. Accordingly, indulgence was shown by this court in staying further steps for dispossession, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.2 lakhs on or before 18.6.2011. It is O.P(DRT) No.1713 of 2011-O 4 reported that the condition stipulated has already been complied with. 6. Heard; standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. It is submitted that the term loan as well as the car loan availed by the petitioner, in the year 2008 and 2006 respectively, are in chronic default and inspite of repeated demands made, the petitioner has not cared to wipe off the liability. It is submitted that there is an outstanding balance of more than Rs.10.88 lakhs put together in both the loan accounts. 7. Considering the limited reliefs sought for by the petitioner for permitting payment of the entire amount, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in granting such relief, eventhough interference on merits is not warranted. This is especially because of the undertaking made by the petitioner that he will withdraw the Securitisation Application pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and also on the basis of an undertaking made that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings O.P(DRT) No.1713 of 2011-O 5 initiated under the SARFAESI Act. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property in question, subject to condition of the petitioner withdrawing the Securitisation Application No.704/2010 pending disposal before the 3rd respondent Tribunal, within a period of one month from today and subject to further condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding, along with interest and expenses if any due, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.8.2011 and on before the last day of succeeding months. 9. It is left open to the petitioner to bring to the notice of respondents 1 and 2 regarding the dispute if any with respect to correctness of the balance amount due under the accounts. If any genuine mistake is pointed out, the respondents 1 and 2 shall consider the same and do the needful for correction of such mistake. 10. It is made clear that on the event of default in O.P(DRT) No.1713 of 2011-O 6 payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab O.P(DRT) No.1713 of 2011-O 7