IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36805 of 2009(U) ------------------------------------- SA.224/2008 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM ................................................ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- E.K. PAPACHAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. KORATHU, EDASSERIYIL HOUSE, NAYATHODU, VIA KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF BHAVAN, M.G. ROAD, COCHIN-35. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.AJAYAGHOSH, STANDING COUNSEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 36805 of 2009 -U ------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the coercive steps taken by the respondent bank invoking the provisions under Section 13(4) read with Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act intending to take physical possession of the property of the petitioner, which according to the petitioner is contrary to the interim order already passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, where the matter is pending. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits on instruction, that, on approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal by the petitioner, the steps taken by the bank were intercepted on an earlier occasion, but subsequently, it happened to be vacated, under which circumstances, further proceedings have been taken by the bank. 3. On going through the pleadings and proceedings, it is now revealed that the petitioner has approached the Debt Recovery W.P(C) No. 36805 of 2009 -U 2 Tribunal again, by filing a subsequent petition. The matter was considered and an interim order of stay has already been granted by the Tribunal, which unfortunately was beyond the knowledge of the respondent bank, which led to impugned proceedings. The learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that further proceedings will be pursued against the petitioner, only after getting proper clarification from the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The above submission is recorded and the Writ Petition is closed. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No. 36805 of 2009 -U 3