IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 OP (DRT).No. 1262 of 2011(O) ---------------------------- ID.8098/2011 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT ---------------------------------------- PARAMAL VISWANATHAN ALIAS NEELANGAL VISWANATHAN, S/O.KELAPPAN, PARAMAL VEEDU, NORTH POILOOR POST, PANOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT, HAVING TEMPORARY ADDRESS AT AMAR SWEETS, LINGSUGUR, RAICHUR, KARNATAKA. BY ADV. SRI.FRANKLIN CHELLATH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER) OF KOZHIKODE OFFICE, COLOMBO COMPLEX, MM ALI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-02. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN,SC, K.S.CO-OP BANK THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vk C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- O.P(DRT).No.1262 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P order whereby the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam had rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), holding that the same was filed beyond the prescribed time limit of 45 days from the date of Section 13(4) measures as intimated by the secured creditor. 2. It is noticed that under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act any person aggrieved by any order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 is entitled to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Since such an effective remedy of statutory appeal is provided, I am of the view that this petition is not maintainable. But learned counsel for petitioner raised a contention that an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal may not be maintainable, in view of the fact that the stakes involved in the proceedings is less than Rs.10 lakhs and also in view of the provisions contained in the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. Referring to the definition of O.P(DRT).1262/11 -2- appeal in the said Rules, it is contended that it contemplates only those appeals under Section 20 or Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDBI Act). But going by the provisions contained in Section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act, it is evident that, the appeals filed under that provision shall be dealt with by the appellate Tribunal in accordance with the provisions contained in the RDBI Act and Rules made thereunder. 3. Hence I am of the view that, despite the non-inclusion of appeals under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, in the purview of appeals contemplated under the appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, an appeal under Section 18 is maintainable before the appellate Tribunal and it shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure contemplated under those Rules. 4. Petitioner further points out that Section 18 of the SARFAESI does not provide a provision for condonation of delay. But going by the provisions contained in the RDBI Act read with Section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act it is evident that the provisions for condonation of delay provided under the RDBI Act will be applicable with respect to appeals under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act also. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights of the petitioner O.P(DRT).1262/11 -3- to challenge Ext.P order before the appellate Tribunal, as contemplated under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb