IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 324 of 2009 -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.3205/2009 DATED 4.2.2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ N.P.THOMAS, S/O.N.T.PAUL, NADACKAL HOUSE PADINJATTUM BHAGOM KARA, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER (C& I),KOTTAYAM MAIN BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 3. M/S.NTP TRADE CENTRE (P) LTD., NTP BUILDING, CENTRAL JUNCTION, ETTUMANOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4. JOLLY THOMAS, W/O.N.P.THOMAS, NADACKAL HOUSE, PADINJATTUMBHAGOM KARA, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. REGISTRAR, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 6. SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY SRI.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE & ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE R2 BY ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO.3205/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.Koshy, Ag.C.J. & P.Bhavadasan, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.324 of 2009 & W.P.(C) No. 3205 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 11th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT J.B.Koshy, Ag.C.J. Appellant stood as surety for the loans advanced by the first respondent bank to the third respondent Company for which the properties of the appellant and the 4th respondent were mortgaged by deposit of title deeds with the bank. The Bank preferred O.A.No.259 of 2008 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for realization of the amount due. The Debts Recovery Tribunal has attached the properties which are not mortgaged also. 2. It is the case of the appellant that he was not heard while passing the order and he may even prefer bank guarantee as security. The main contention of the appellant is that when there are mortgaged properties that ought to have been taken by the Bank instead of proceeding with other properties and the attachment was made without complying with Sections 19(13) and 19(16) of the RDB Act. It is for the appellant to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal W.A.No.324/2009 & WP(C) No.3205/2009 2 itself for vacating the interim order of attachment stating all the contentions available to him. As the interim attachment order is passed without notice to him, if the appellant files a petition, the Tribunal will consider the same and pass appropriate orders. There was no need to pass the impugned interim order and writ petition ought not to have been entertained. 3. In the above circumstances, we allow the writ appeal and the impugned interim order in the writ petition is quashed and the writ petition itself is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. J.B.Koshy, (Ag. Chief Justice) P.Bhavadasan, (Judge) vns