IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP (DRT).No. 771 of 2010(O) ----------------------------------------- SA.250/2009 OF DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- PRAVEEN KUMAR E.A., S/O.E.M. ARAVINDAKSHAN, RESIDING AT ARAVINDAM, N.K.S. ROAD, KOCHI-12. BY ADV. SRI.P.SHRIHARI, SMT.P.VANI. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. AKHIYA LOUIS (MINOR), AGED 13 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE BINDU LOUIS, PAZHANGATPARAMBIL, JANATHA JUNCTION, VYTTILA P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 21, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND UNNI CHANDI S/O.THOMAS CHANDI, ERASSERI HOUSE, MARARIKULAM P.O CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, FEDERAL TOWERS, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031. 3. RUBICON TECHNO PROJECTS (P) LTD, K.V.II, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, KOCHI-682 036. 4. JOHNSON CHACKO, S/O.CHACKO, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, IG, KB APARTMENTS, ELAMKULAM, KOCHI - 20. 5. RANI FRANCIS, W/O.LATE PAUL FRANCIS, XIV/19, KURIAPALLY HOUSE, MUKKANIKKAL, NADIYATTUKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVUR-683 513. OP (DRT).No. 771 of 2010(O) 6. SHOBHA, D/O.LATE PAUL FRANCIS, XIV/19, KURIAPALLY HOUSE, MUKKANIKKAL, NADIYATTUKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVUR-683 513. 7. MINI, D/O.LATE PAUL FRANCIS, XIV/19, KURIAPALLY HOUSE, MUKKANIKKAL, NADIYATTUKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVUR-683 513. 8. MANOJ, S/O.LATE PAUL FRANCIS, XIV/19, KURIAPALLY HOUSE, MUKKANIKKAL, NADIYATTUKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVUR-683 513. 9. MANJU, D/O.LATE PAUL FRANCIS, XIV/19, KURIAPALLY HOUSE, MUKKANIKKAL, NADIYATTUKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVUR-683 513. 10. LOUIS ANTONY, PAZHANGATPARAMBIL, JANATHA JUNCTION, VYTTILA P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 021. R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.MAHESH KUMAR, SRI.DEEPAK JOY.K. R2 BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SMT.P.V.PARVATHI, SMT.REENA THOMAS, SRI.L.RAM MOHAN. THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs OP (DRT).No. 771 of 2010(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/05/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/05/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02/07/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE I.A. NO.588/2010 IN S.A. NO.250/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN TO EXT.P4. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- O.P.(DRT) No.771 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the auction purchaser with respect to certain immovable property, sold by the second respondent in a proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The loan in question was availed by the fourth respondent by mortgaging the said property, which belonged to predecessors in interest of respondents 5 to 10. The first respondent herein, who is a minor aged 13 years, had filed a securitisation application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, challenging the sale proceedings, on the ground that he is having interest in the property in question, and that the mortgage was created without his knowledge and intervention. The above said petition filed as S.A.No.250 of 2009 is pending consideration and disposal before the DRT, Ernakulam. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that, the sale was 2 O.P.(DRT) No.771 of 2010 conducted without disclosing the interest of the first respondent minor in the property in question and therefore he wants to resile from the sale. Under such circumstances, the petitioner filed I.A.No.588 of 2010 before the DRT, seeking direction to the second respondent herein to refund ` 24,50,500/-, which is the amount deposited by the petitioner as the sale amount, along with interest due thereon. 3. It is contended by the petitioner that, inspite of filing of the above said application as early as on 18.2.2010, the Tribunal is not considering and disposing the same, nor any final decision is taken in the securitisation application. According to the petitioner, the amount of sale price deposited by the petitioner is being kept by the 2nd respondent indefinitely and the indefinite pendency of the matter before the DRT is causing severe prejudice. 4. Counsel for the second respondent contended that the claim now raised by the first respondent before the DRT is not maintainable, in view of the fact that he was 3 O.P.(DRT) No.771 of 2010 substantially represented in all the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act as well as in an O.A. filed by the Bank for realising the amounts due under the loan transaction. It is further contended that, the petitioner is not entitled to seek refund of the amount deposited, unless the sale is set aside. However, if the petitioner has to seek any such refund, it is for him to file appropriate application seeking to set aside the sale, and the I.A. now filed as per Ext.P4 is not maintainable, is the contention. 5. Per contra, counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that, the securitisation application was instituted on a legally valid ground and it is for the DRT to conduct an appropriate adjudication on the said petition. 6. Considering the rival contentions, I am of the view that this Court need not go into the merits of the matter, since the DRT is in seizin of the same. The parties will be at liberty to raise all contentions before the Tribunal, including maintainability of the securitisation application as well as the interim application filed by the petitioner. However, I 4 O.P.(DRT) No.771 of 2010 am of the view that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the Tribunal to dispose of the matter on an early basis, especially taking note of the time limits stipulated under Section 17(5) of the SARFAESI Act. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, to consider and dispose of I.A.No.588 of 2010 as well as S.A.No.250 of 2009 at the earliest possible, after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties concerned. An earnest effort will be taken to dispose of the matter, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/