IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1692 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.22713/2011 Dated 02/09/2011 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- M/S UTHAMAN PETROLEUM,KATTOOR.P.O, KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA REP:BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, JOMON JOHN. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------- INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, REP;BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER,SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL, S/O.VASU,AGED 59 YEARS. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.LEO GEORGE FOR R THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1692 OF 2011 and C.M. Appln. No. 983 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Senior counsel, Sri.P.B. Sureshkumar, representing the respondent Bank. 2. The respondent Bank approached the learned Single Judge seeking quashing of Ext.P3, wherein the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short CDRF), Alappuzha restrained the respondent bank from converting account of the appellant with the bank to the non-performing asset which would be the first step under the Securitisation Act. The CDRF has also restrained the respondent bank from converting the account in any manner against the complainant till disposal of the complaint. 3. As could be gathered from the submissions across the Bar, the appellant herein approached the respondent bank for W.A. No. 1692 of 2011 -:2:- certain loan and in fact he did enjoy the facility of altogether `.51 lakhs under two loans. When the repayment became overdue, the respondent bank intended to proceed under the Securitisation Act and at that point of time the present complaint seems to have been lodged by the appellant before the CDRF wherein Ext.P3 came to be passed. The complaint lodged against the respondent bank is with regard to the adjustment of certain amounts belonging to the appellant by the bank and according to the appellant it is without the permission of the appellant. 4. However, the learned Senior Counsel arguing for the respondent bank submits that the amounts in the deposit were adjusted to the loan due by exercising the Banker's general lien on the said amount and there was no adjustment of any amounts violating any procedures contemplated. 5. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances was justified in saying that the CDRF has no jurisdiction to entertain the disputes of this nature and the appellant is at liberty to approach DRT if W.A. No. 1692 of 2011 -:3:- any proceedings of the respondent bank under the Securitisation Act is to be challenged including the adjustment of the deposit amount as alleged by the appellant. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that nothing remains for us to consider in this appeal. C.M. Appln. No. 983 of 2011 filed for condoning delay of 15 days in filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Judge. ttb