IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 OP (DRT).No. 222 of 2010(O) ----------------------------------------- SA.459/2010 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- THE CHIEF MANAGER & AUTHORISED OFFICER STRESSED ASSET RESOLUTION CENTRE, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, 'GEETANJALI BUILDINGS' PARAMEKKAVU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH, SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR, SMT.VANDANA MENON, SMT.ANJU P.NAIR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- JAMES THARAYIL, S/O.DEVASSY K.P. RESIDING AT KOTTEKADU, KUTTUR P.O., KUTTUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE, SRI.ADEEP ANWAR. THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= O.P. (DRT) No. 222 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an Officer of State Bank of Travancore, authorized under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Proceedings initiated under the said Act against the respondent was challenged before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam by filing S.A. No.459 of 2010 under section 17(1) of the Act. It is stated that, before approaching the Tribunal the respondent had filed another writ petition before this Court, W.P.(C) No.22314 of 2010. That writ petition was disposed of recording submission of the respondent that he had already invoked the remedy available under section 17(1) of the Act. Along with S.A. No.459 of 2010 the respondent had filed I.A. No.1987 of 2010. On 21-7-2010 the Tribunal had issued an interim order staying all further proceedings till 8-9- 2010. According to the petitioner, they have already filed counter affidavit in the interim application and statement in the O.P.(DRT) No.222/2010 2 Securitisation Application. It is stated that hearing of the matter was advanced to 10-8-2010 and the matter was heard on that day. Grievance of the petitioner is that the Tribunal has not so far issued any orders either on the interim application or on the Securitisation Application. It is pointed out that under section 17 (5) of the Act the Tribunal is bound to dispose of the application within a period of four months. Hence direction is sought for an early disposal of the matter by the Tribunal. 2. On the basis of a direction issued by this Court , Mr.Varghese C. Kuriakose entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. It was admitted that hearing was conducted on the Securitisation Application, before the Tribunal, on 10-8-2010 and that the orders are awaited. It is contended that there was no delay on the side of the Tribunal in the disposal of the matter. The Tribunal had in fact advanced the hearing and the matter was heard on an early date. It is further pointed out that the statutory period of 4 months stipulated under section 17(5) is not yet over. Under the above circumstances, the relief sought for in this writ was opposed. O.P.(DRT) No.222/2010 3 3. Having considered the facts and circumstances prevalent in the matter, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal could not be find fault with in not passing orders on the interim application, since it is brought to my notice that the entire matter was heard on 10-8-2010. However, it is only just and proper in the interest of justice that orders be issued either on the interim application or Securitisation Application itself, without any further delay. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Tribunal to pass orders either on I.A. No.1987 of 2010 or S.A. No.459 of 2010, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.