IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2010 / 26TH ASWINA 1932 OP (DRT).No. 189 of 2010(O) --------------------------- SA.204/2008 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE, R.S.BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011. BY SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADVS.SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL, SRI.THOMAS JAMES MUNDACKAL, SRI.BOBBY THOMAS. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. TESSY JOSEPH, W/O. JOSEPH, 1/185 MUTTAM, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALWAYE-683 106. 2. THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, 5TH FLOOR, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= O.P.(DRT) No. 189 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner Bank seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent Tribunal to pronounce final orders/judgment, in S.A. No.204 of 2008, pending disposal before that Tribunal. 2. The matter relates to a loan, which was availed by the 1st respondent, from the petitioner Bank. Consequent to default committed in repayment, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the SARFAESI Act) was initiated. At that stage, the husband of the 1st respondent, who is one among the borrowers, had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25834 of 2008. In Ext.P1 judgment this Court directed payment of a sum of Rs.5 lakhs within six weeks from 3-9-2008. It was also directed to pay the balance in 12 equal monthly instalments, starting from 1-12-2008. On that basis dis- possession and other coercive steps were directed to be kept in abeyance. O.P.(DRT) 189/2010 2 3. It is stated that no amount was paid either by the 1st respondent or by her husband, pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment. On the other hand, Ext.P1 judgment was challenged in W.A. No.2075 of 2008, which was dismissed by this Court on 21-10- 2008. It is contended that even after dismissal of the above said writ appeal, without making payment of any amount, the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent Tribunal by filing S.A. No.204 of 2008. The Tribunal had issued an order of status quo, subject to condition of payment of 10% of the amount due, on or before 16-12-2008, and another 10% on or before 16-1-2009. But no amount was paid by the 1st respondent. 4. According to the petitioner Bank, in spite of filing a petition to advance hearing of the matter, the 2nd respondent Tribunal had not conducted any hearing on the interim application. It is stated that, ultimately the matter was heard on 7-8-2009 and the case stands reserved for pronouncement of orders, after extending the interim order of status quo until further orders. It is complaint that the 2nd respondent Tribunal O.P.(DRT) 189/2010 3 has not so far issued orders, either in the interim application or in S.A. No.204 of 2008, in spite of lapse of more than one week. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent pointed out that, after considering the entire facts and circumstances prevalent in the case, the Tribunal had granted interim stay. It is further pointed out that the petitioner Bank is not entitled to file this writ petition, in view of the remedy provided under section 17(6) of the Act, in case when the Securitisation Application is not disposed of within a period of four months. 6. While taking note of the fact, I am of the opinion that it is not at all proper to look into the merits of the rival contentions, which is a matter now pending disposal before the Tribunal. Further it is evident that the Tribunal had issued an interim order of status quo in the matter, as early as in December, 2008. It is further evident that the matter was heard on 7-8-2009. Under such circumstances, it is obligatory on the part of the 2nd respondent Tribunal to pass orders, either on the interim application or on the securitization O.P.(DRT) 189/2010 4 application, taking note of the contentions raised by the petitioner Bank. Keeping the matter pending without pronouncing orders, will definitely cause prejudice to the petitioner. Even though alternate remedy is provided under section 17(6), this Court is justified in issuing necessary directions in exercise of powers under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will serve if a direction is issued to the Tribunal to take earnest efforts to pass orders in the matter at the earliest possible. 7. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders either on the stay petition or on the securitisation application (S.A. No.204 of 2008) at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.