IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12196 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN DRC 2125 IN OA.148/2005 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MR.SHAHAS P.SHAHUL, S/O.P.M.SHAHUL HAMEED, PARAPPALLIL HOUSE, KURUVAMOOZHY P.O., KORATTY, ERUMELY, KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JUFIN GEORGE VALOORAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT THRISSUR AND BRANCH AMONG OTHER PLACES AT CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. K.KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O.A.KULMARESAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.KRISHNA ENTERPRISES, CHOORAKKATTUPALAYAM, T.C.38/525, CHENTHITTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. A.KUMARESAN, S/O.APPAVU PILLAI, CHOORAKKATTUPALAYAM, T.C.38/525, CHENTHITTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE FOR R2 SMT.P.V.PARVATHI FOR R2 SMT.REENA THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.RAMMOHAN L. FOR R2 STANDING COUNSEL SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE FOR R2 & R3 SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 12196 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the auction purchaser of the property over which security interest was created by the borrower in favour of the 1st respondent Bank in connection with a loan transaction. The prayer in the Writ Petition is that the proceedings before the DRT are still to be finalised and the sale is yet to be confirmed in favour of the petitioner, despite the satisfaction of the full sale price and inspite of the final hearing of Ext.P3 proceedings held as early as on 09.11.2009. 2. The sequence of events as narrated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the property concerned was put in auction on 29.09.2009 and the petitioner was the successful bidder, who bid the property for a total sale consideration of Rs.38,88,510/-. It is also stated that the entire sale consideration was satisfied on time and the matter was posted for confirmation. It was in the meanwhile, that the borrower, who is the owner of the property in question, filed Ext.P3 appeal No. 34/2009 before the DRT under Section 30 of the Central Act 51 of 1993, which was ordered to be posted on 03.11.2009 for further consideration. On 03.11.2009, the matter was adjourned to 09.11.2009. Taking note of the turn of events, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 I.A. seeking to 2 WP(C) No. 12196/2010 implead him in the party array. But when the proceedings were taken up for final hearing on 09.11.2009, the owners of the property who had filed Ext.P3 appeal sought for time to file objection in the petition for impleading. Since it was likely to delay the proceedings, the petitioner sought to withdraw the impleading petition, in view of the final hearing of the appeal scheduled on 09.11.2009. Accordingly, the impleading petition was dismissed as withdrawn and the final hearing of Ext.P3 appeal was effected on 09.11.2009 itself. In spite of this, final orders yet to be pronounced by the DRT, which made the petitioner to approach this Court for finalisation of the proceedings within a specific time limit. 3. Sri.George Varghese, the learned standing counsel accepted notice on behalf of the respondent Bank. Urgent notice on admission was issued by this Court to the 2nd and 3rd respondents; pursuant to which, they have entered appearance and filed detailed counter affidavit. The learned counsel appearing for the said respondents submits that the DRT had earlier passed an interim order on 23.09.2009, after hearing the Bank; staying confirmation of the sale proposed on 29.09.2009 and that the same was communicated to the Recovery Officer immediately. On 29.09.2009, the Bank brought the present petitioner before the Recovery Officer and he was the sole bidder. The sale was effected by the Recovery officer on 29.09.2009 and the factum of stay of confirmation of sale vide order dated 3 WP(C) No. 12196/2010 24.09.2009 in Ext.P3 appeal was also communicated to the bidder. It was accordingly that the property was bid by the petitioner for a 'throw away' price of nearly 38.8 lakhs. According to the respondents 2 and 3, the property of 8 cents situated in near Thampanoor Junction, Thiruvananthapuram is having a market value of nearly 1.2 crores. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, because of the delay in finalising the proceedings, the petitioner is made to suffer quite a lot; who has already parted with very substantial extent of money. The learned counsel further submits that the only prayer now pressed before this Court is to see that either the sale is confirmed at the earliest or the amount paid by the petitioner might be ordered to be returned forthwith, if the first course is not open or available in any manner. 5. Considering the nature and extent of relief sought for, this Court finds that the matter requires interference, more so when the final hearing of Ext.P3 appeal was held on 09.11.2009. 6. In the above circumstances, the DRT is directed to pass final orders on Ext.P3 appeal, the hearing of which is stated as over on 09.11.2009, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the event, the relief sought for by the appellant in Ext.P3 appeal is granted, the amount satisfied by the petitioner shall be caused to be returned to the petitioner 4 WP(C) No. 12196/2010 forthwith, at any rate, within one week thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc