IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5649 of 2010(E) ------------------------- SA.37/2006 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHIEF MANAGER, SARC, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, 2ND FLOOR, THAVOT PLACE, KANNUR ROAD, CALICUT-1. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON SMT.ANJU P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MR.MOHAMMED HARRIS, S/O.K.HAMEED, AGED 40 YEARS, CITIZEN TRADERS, BIG BAZAR, CALICUT. ADV. SRI.SAJI MATHEW FOR R1 SRI.DENU JOSEPH FOR R1 SRI.JUFIN GEORGE VALOORAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 5649 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner Bank is before this Court alleging callous inaction on the part of the DRT in finalization of Ext.P1 proceedings pending for more than 3 years, instead of having the same finalized within the time stipulated under the relevant provisions of law. 2. The sequence of events as described in the Writ Petition reveals that a 'cash credit facility' to an extent of Rs.30 lakhs was extended to the respondent in the year 2004, in connection with the latter's business and another 'overdraft facility' to an extent of Rs.20 lakhs was provided, over and above the former. The repayment was a matter of seldom exercise and finally, because of the chronic default, there was no other alternative for the Bank but to proceed with further steps under the SARFAESI Act, declaring the account as 'NPA'. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Bank submits that proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Act were pursued way back in May, 2006 and it was followed by 'sale notice' in respect of the property over which the security interest was created. At this point of time, the respondent/borrower chose to turn up before the DRT by filing Ext.P1, WP(C) No.5649/2010 2 challenging the sale proceedings. The petitioner Bank entered appearance and filed Ext.P2 written statement on 11.05.2006. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioner Bank resorted to further proceedings causing the security property to be sold in public auction, when the respondent filed Ext.P4 petition for stay on 10.03.2009, to which the Bank filed Ext.P5 counter on 02.06.2009. After hearing both the sides, the DRT passed an order on 11.03.2009 intercepting the sale proceedings, on condition that the borrower deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on or before 30.04.2009, simultaneously ordering 'status- quo' to be maintained. The case of the petitioner Bank is that the borrower did not satisfy the requirements; whereas the interim order passed by the Tribunal to maintain 'status quo' still subsists which hence is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the allegation raised against the respondent that he did not satisfy the requirement by remitting the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is not correct and that the respondent has in fact remitted Rs.2,00,000/-, though belatedly. The learned counsel also submits that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable, in view of the alternate remedy provided to the petitioner Bank under Section 17(6) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner Bank retorts that the alternate remedy is not a bar, in view of the WP(C) No.5649/2010 3 settled position of law and further that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason in keeping the proceedings in cold storage, when the final hearing was held before the DRT as early as on 18.09.2009, in respect of the I.A. 5. After hearing both the sides, this Court find that there is absolutely no justification in keeping Ext.P1 proceedings pending any further and same has to be taken logical conclusion; of course based on the pleading and evidence on record. Accordingly, the DRT is directed to consider and finalise Ext.P1, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed. No cost. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc