IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34118 of 2009(H) -------------------------- OA.107/2003 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. J.A.ERNEST ALIAS JOSEPH AUGUSTINE ERNEST, PAPPALI HOUSE, UNICHIRA,KOCHI 782 024, PRESENTLY AT 'AVE MARIA', PAPPALI HOUSE FR.MANUEL ROAD,KARTHIKADAVU,KOCHI 682 018. 2. AMMINI ERNEST, W/O.J.A. ERNEST PAPPALI HOUSE, UNICHIRA,KOCHI 782 024, PRESENTLY AT 'AVE MARIA', PAPPALI HOUSE FR.MANUEL ROAD,KARTHIKADAVU,KOCHI 682 018. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.K.P.GEETHAMANI SRI.P.N.APPUKUTTAN SRI.M.J.JOHNSON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S.TRITON SYSTEMS PVT.LTD, 35/791, CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NORTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM,PRESENTLY AT 35/1774,JYOTHI, RESERVE BANK LANE, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM,KOCHI 682 025, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SOLOMON ERNEST.P 2. SOLOMON ERNEST .P MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.TRITON SYSTEMS PVT.LTD RESIDING AT D-3, FALCON HEIGHTS SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM,KOCHI 682 025. 3. SMT. VASANA SOLOMON,W/O.SOLOM ERNEST SANGEETH , NO.21, GREE GARDEN,EDAPPALLY TOLL KOCHI-682 024, PRESENTLY AT D-3, FALCON HEIGHTS SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM,KOCHI 682 025. (..2/-) WP(C).34118/09-H (2) 4. V.S.LALAN, SRUTHI NILAYAM, 32/1657 C, BYE PASS ROAD, PALARIVATTOM,KOCHI 682 025. 5. ANIL ALIAS SATHEESAN, THOPPIL HOUSE, THAIKATTUKARA, ALUVA WEST, PIN 683 106. 6. STATE BANK OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM BRANCH, KOCHI 682 011, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER AND PRINICPAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI 682 011. 7. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE, 40/974, 2ND FLOOR, R.S.BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011. 8. THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. ADV.SRI.P.V. SURENDRA NATH, S.C., SBI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.34118 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Heard counsel for the petitioners and standing counsel for 6th respondent Bank. In view of the fact that I am not entering upon any findings regarding merits of the case and in view of the fact that the relief proposed to be granted is only a direction to the 8th respondent for disposal of the matter on an early basis, notice is not issued to respondents 1 to 5. 2. Grievance of the petitioners is that a securitization application filed under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) along with many other interlocutory applications filed therein are not being considered and disposed of by the 8th respondent Tribunal, ignoring the mandatory requirement under Section 17(5) to dispose of such applications within a maximum period of 4 months. 3. Immovable property belonging to the petitioners was mortgaged for securing a loan availed by the 1st respondent concern, which is owned by the respondents 2 and 3, who are the son and daughter-in-law of the petitioners. Consequent to W.P.(C).34118/09-H 2 default committed in repayment the 6th respondent initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and took over possession of the property in question, under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. At that stage, on 4.2.2008, S.A.No:17/2008 was filed by the petitioners and respondents 1 to 3, before the 8th respondent. Subsequently when sale of the properties were proclaimed, I.A.No:1546/08 was filed seeking stay of the sale proceedings. Eventhough I.A.No:1545/08 was filed seeking an urgent hearing of the matter, the stay petition was adjourned on several occasions, without passing any orders thereon. Consequently the properties in question were sold in public auction on 29.10.2008. Thereafter I.A.No:1697/08 was filed seeking to set aside the sale, after impleading the auction purchaser. But the said application was also not disposed of by the Tribunal and adjourned from time to time along with the main petition. Thereafter the property in question was handed over to the auction purchaser and when he attempted to demolish the building, the petitioner again filed I.A.No:1937/08. No orders was issued in the said application also. It is further stated that the auction purchaser had already sold a portion of the property to the 5th respondent. 4. It is stated that the securitisation application and all W.P.(C).34118/09-H 3 the above said interlocutory applications are being repeatedly adjourned and the 8th respondent Tribunal is not disposing of those applications expeditiously. It is further submitted that the matter now stands posted to 2.12.2009. 5. As per Section 17(5) of the SARFAESI Act, an application made under Section 17(1) should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, within 60 days from the date of such application. But the Tribunal can extend disposal of such application from time to time for specific reason to be recorded in writing. However, the proviso to Section 17(5) makes it clear that the period of pendency of such application shall not extend beyond 4 months from the date of filing. In this case it is evident that the securitisation application was filed as early as on 4.2.2008. Subsequently many other interlocutory applications were also filed in the matter. The non-disposal of the applications as well as the interim petitions is causing much prejudice to the petitioner, is the contention. 6. It is noticed that as per Section 17(6) of the SARFAESI Act if the applications are not disposed of by the Debt Recovery Tribunal within a period of 4 months, the party has got a remedy by way of application to be submitted to the appellate Tribunal seeking expeditious disposal of the matter. But in this W.P.(C).34118/09-H 4 case it is noticed that there is inordinate delay. It is also noticed that the petitioners are senior citizens aged 90 years and 80 years respectively. It is further noticed that there is no regular sitting in the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter, since no presiding officer is posted to that Tribunal. Considering all the above situation I am of the opinion that it is only just and proper in the interest of justice to issue necessary directions for an early disposal of the matter by the 8th respondent. 7. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing 8th respondent to consider S.A.No:17/08 along with the accompanying I.As and to dispose of the same, as far as possible on the next posting date itself, and if not possible to dispose of the same at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of one month thereafter. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. Okb