IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP (DRT).No. 1148 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------------ [IA.NO.2602/2010 IN DRC.NO.1088/2000 IN OA.488/2002 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM] .................... PETITIONER/3RD DEFENDANT: --------------------------------------------- M. KUMARY, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O. MADHAVAN, KUNDUKATTIL HOUSE,KANIYARACODE.P.O, THIRUVILWAMALA, THRISSUR 94. BY SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.JOHN NUMPELI (JUNIOR). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. OFFICE OF THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, 8TH FLOOR, K.S.H.B BUILIDING, COCHIN -36. 2. P.A, PREMKUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. IYYAPPAN, PARAKKOTTIL HOUSE, KUTHAMPILLY.P.O,THIRUVILWAMALA, THRISSUR - 680 588. 3. SRI.P.K. SUDHEER, S/O. KUNJU, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, KOORKANCHERY, THRISSUR -680 007. 4. CANARA BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, S.S.I BRANCH, ATHANI, THRISSUR - 683 585. R4 BY SRI. PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN.S.C. THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- O.P.(DRT).No.1148 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The petitioner is a guarantor with respect to the loan availed by the 2nd respondent from the 4th respondent Bank. Consequent to default committed in repayment of amounts due under the loan account, the respondent bank had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal and a Recovery Certificate was issued. In execution of the recovery certificate, the 1st respondent had conducted sale of the immovable property belonging to the petitioner, which was mortgaged for securing the loan. The sale in question was conducted on 31.5.2010. According to the petitioner the property belonging to her described as item No.3 in Ext.P1 proclamation, was sold for a sum of Rs.5,10,000/-, which is far below the prevailing market value. It is alleged that the 3rd respondent, who is the auction purchaser, had bid in auction the property in collusion with the 4th respondent bank and that the property in question will worth at least an amount of Rs.4 lakhs per cent. It is mentioned that, immediately on coming to know about the sale, the petitioner had filed application under Rule 87 of the 2nd schedule of Income Tax Act, 1961 as I.A.No.2602/2010 before the 1st OP(DRT).1148/10 -2- respondent. The said application was dismissed as per Ext.P2 stating that the petitioner has not filed any proper application under Rule 60, 61 and 62 of the second schedule of Income Tax Act, 1961. On receipt of Ext.P2 the petitioner had filed further applications as I.A.No.3087/2010 under Rule 60, 61 & 62 of the second schedule, along with I.A.No.3086/2010 seeking stay of further proceedings pursuant to the sale. Copies of those applications are produced as Ext.P3 and P4. According to the petitioner the above said applications were already registered before the 1st respondent and they are pending consideration and disposal. Under the above premise the petitioner is seeking direction to restrain further steps of recovery. 2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for 4th respondent submitted that pursuant to the sale conducted, the 3rd respondent had already remitted the entire sale consideration and that the sale certificate was already issued in favour of him, on 15.7.2010. According to the 4th respondent Ext.P3 and P4 applications now filed before the 1st respondent are not maintainable. 3. Having considered the fact that the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 and P4 before the 1st respondent, I am of the view that the question raised therein including maintainability of such applications need be considered at the first instance by the OP(DRT).1148/10 -3- 1st respondent. I am of the further view that interest of justice will be served if 1st respondent is directed to consider those applications on an early basis and till then further steps if any taken for delivery of possession of the property is directed to be kept in abeyance. 4. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 and Ext.P4, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as to respondents 3 and 4. 5. Till such time orders are passed by the 1st respondent as directed above, further steps for delivery of possession of the property in question shall be kept in abeyance, if not already delivered possession. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb