IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 OP (DRT).No. 216 of 2011(O) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- SHEEBA RAJENDRAN, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.RAJENDRAN, HOUSE NO.17/533, THIRUVATHIRA HOUSE, PROJECT COLONY ROAD, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA, NOW RESIDING AT ANAMOOTTIL HOUSE, EDAKOCHI, KOCHI-10. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, COCHIN SHIPYARD BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 016 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSET RESOLUTION CENTRE, ERNAKULAM-682 017 ADV.MR. P.V. SURENDRANATH - SC THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- O.P.(DRT) No.216 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner's husband took a loan from the first respondent bank. Repayment of the same was defaulted. The petitioner's husband is no more. Proceedings were initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act by the bank. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the proceedings. In the said proceedings, the Tribunal passed conditional interim orders. Since the petitioner has not complied with the conditions in the interim orders, by Ext.P4, the Tribunal vacated the interim orders. Subsequently, further proceedings have been initiated by the bank in the securitisation proceedings. The petitioner is now challenging the same. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any proceedings of the Tribunal, it is for the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal or convince the Debt Recovery Tribunal about her contentions. O.P.(DRT)No.216/11 2 I am not inclined to entertain this original petition (DRT) in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, insofar as the petitioner has not been able to satisfy me about any irregularity in the proceedings before the Tribunal. Accordingly, this original petition (DRT) is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd O.P.(DRT)No.216/11 3