IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 RP.No. 584 of 2008(L) --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/05/2008 IN I.A.NO.5598/2008 AND I.A.NO.6128/2008 IN WPC.12084/2008 .......................................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ PETITIONER IN W.P.(C): --------------------------------------------------------------------- SINU SAMUEL, S/O.DANIEL SAMUEL, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUZHIYATH SINU VILLA, PERUMPANACHY PORT, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C): ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER (ADVANCES), REGION-II, ZONAL OFFICE, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.PATHROS MATHAI, SC, SBT – R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN – R2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 8829 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== R.P.584/2008, WP(C).8829/2008-A & WP(C).12084/2008-L ================================== Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT These matters are filed by the same person. He availed certain loan facility from the State Bank of Travancore and defaulted in repayment. This led to SARFAESI Act proceedings. He has initiated statutory action under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Yet, these writ petitions were entertained for the reasons stated in the interim order dated 10-4- 2008. The attempt was only to provide the petitioner an opportunity to recoup from the financial problems and carry on his business. Later, even that order was modified reducing the instalment amount to be at the rate of Rs.3 lacs. Now, the petitioner seeks review of that order by relying on certain statements prepared during the audit. It is not for this Court to substitute the RP584/08 & WPC8829 & 12084/08 -:2:- decision of the DRT or to find out other ways and means of sustaining the proceedings which are essentially parallel to statutory proceedings pending before the DRT. Having regard to what is aforesaid, these writ petitions and the review petition are dismissed, however clarifying that any amount paid by the petitioner will be given due credit to and the DRT will be at liberty to consider and dispose of Section 17 application on its merits. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.