IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 OP (DRT).No. 3282 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ---------------- M/S. AARON INTERNATIONAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER V.A.AZAD, AZAD MANZIL, PANAYIKULAM P.O., ALANGAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM - 683 511. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. UCO BANK, RAVIPURAM BRANCH,M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAYER. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, UCO BANK, RAVIPURAM BRANCH, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. P.V.SURENDRANATH THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs O.P.(DRT). NO. 3282/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/04/2011. P2: COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 15/06/2011 P3: COPY OF THE POSSESSISON NOTICE DATED 17/08/2011 U/S. 13(4) OF THE ACT. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA. 1826/2011 IN SA. NO.45/2011. P5: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SA. 458/2011 ALONG WITH THE PETITION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 1826/2011 IN SA 458/2011. P7: COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DATED 05/10/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P(DRT) No. 3282 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 12th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an applicant in Securitization Application No. 458/2011 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. The S.A is filed challenging proceedings under the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner moved an interim application for stay of proceedings. By Ext.P4 order, the Tribunal granted an interim order on certain conditions. The petitioner did not comply with the conditions. Therefore, by Ext.P6 order, the Tribunal vacated the interim order. That is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner only seeks time to comply wit the directions in Ext.P4 order. Although, I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed, taking a lenient view, I quash Ext.P6 order and direct the Tribunal to grant the petitioner one more month's time to comply with the conditions in Ext.P4 order. If the petitioner does not comply with the conditions in Ext.P4 order within one month from today, the petitioner will not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment and Ext.P6 would revive. In the above circumstances, for a period of one more month, the respondents are directed to keep further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 in abeyance. If the petitioner complies with the conditions in Ext.P4 order, Ext.P4 order would continue to be in force until ordered otherwise. But, if the petitioner fails to comply with the conditions within one month, Ext.P6 would revive and the respondents can continue proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 appropriately. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/