IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 OP (DRT).No. 1179 of 2010(O) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/12/2010 IN IA 3201/2010 IN SA.30/2010 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS:- -------------------- K.P.SUNNY, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.PHILIPOSE, AMMUS COTTAGE, A.K.G.NAGAR, PEROORKADA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ZAKEER HUSSAIN SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR, CHILD WELFARE COMPLEX, L.M.S. COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 033. 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, KANNAMOOLA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER. 695 033. ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL FOR R1 & R2 THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = OP(DRT).No.1179 of 2010-O. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 sale notice published with respect to sale of immovable property which is the secured asset, with respect to loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank. The steps for sale was taken on the basis of proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), consequent to default committed in repayment of the loan. It is evident that, when steps as contemplated under Section 13(4) was initiated, the petitioner had invoked statutory remedy under Sec.17(1) and a securitisation application was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is further evident that the Tribunal had granted an interim stay restraining further steps, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting an amount of Rs.6.5 Lakhs. But the OP(DRT).No.1179 of 2010-O. 2 petitioner had failed to comply with that condition. 2. When coercive steps were proceeded the petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing WP(C).No.28735 of 2010. By Ext.P9 Judgment the said writ petition was dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy from the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It was made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the Tribunal and to seek appropriate modification or extension of time with respect to the interim order issued. 3. It is stated that in the meanwhile the respondent Bank had published Ext.P10 sale notice and the petitioner had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Ext.P11 petition seeking stay of all further proceedings of sale. Since the Tribunal had not issued any order on Ext.P11 application, this writ petition was filed. 4. It is now brought to my notice that by Ext.P10 notice the bank had conducted auction sale of the property and the highest bid was accepted for a sum of OP(DRT).No.1179 of 2010-O. 3 Rs.44,50,000/-. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent Bank that the bidder had already remitted 25% of the said mount. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, consequent to the sale conducted, the petitioner had filed IA.No.13/2011 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, in the pending securitisation application, seeking to set aside the sale. It is further submitted that the Debt Recovery Tribunal had posted the matter for further consideration on 22.1.2011. Under such circumstance, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to restrain further steps for sale, till the matter is decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 6. The prayer in this regard was opposed by the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank on the premise that, due to the pendency of this writ petition and due to the interim order issued by this Court restraining confirmation of sale, the Bank is not in a position to accept the balance amount from the auction purchaser. Under such circumstance, the respondent is opposing grant of any OP(DRT).No.1179 of 2010-O. 4 relief restraining further steps of the sale. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances and the rival submissions, I am of the view that, since the sale had already taken place and since the petitioner had already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal seeking to set aside the sale, the matter need to be pursued before that authority. At any rate, this Court could not entertain any challenge against the sale in this writ petition. 8. However, I am of the view that the interest of justice will be served if the respondent Bank is restrained from proceeding with issuance of sale certificate and further proceedings, for a reasonable time, in order to facilitate the petitioner seeking appropriate relief from the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 9. Hence this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to restrain issuance of sale certificate and delivery of possession of the property till 31.1.2011. It is made clear that the respondent Bank will be at liberty to accept the bid amount in full from the auction purchaser, in OP(DRT).No.1179 of 2010-O. 5 the meanwhile. It is further made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to pursue the petition now filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and to seek appropriate relief including interim relief with respect to stay of further proceedings pursuant to the sale. 10. It is made clear that I am not expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions and that the Debt Recovery Tribunal has to appreciate the matter on the basis of merits and the provisions contained in the Statute. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-