IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP (DRT).No. 1063 of 2011(O) ---------------------------- OA.319/1998 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. M/S.PARISONS FOODS LTD REGD.OFFICE 6/1183, CHEROOTTY ROAD, CALICUT 673 032,REPRESENTED BY BITS DIRECTOR N.K.KHALID. 2. N.K.KHALID, DIRECTOR ,M/S.PARISONS FOODS LTD REGD.OFFICE 6/1183, CHEROOTTY ROAD,CALICUT 673 032 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP) 8TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682 036. 2. SAIDALIKUTTY & BAVA, T.P.HOUSE, KALPAKAMCHERRY, MALAPPURAM 676 551. 3. STATE BANK OF INDIA KOLLAM MAIN BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691001. BY SC SRI. R.S. KALKURA THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ O.P.(DRT) NO. 1063 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 18th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pursuant to the proceedings in DRC No.512, which arose from OA 319/98 on the file of the 1st respondent Tribunal, properties of the 2nd respondent and the other debtors were sold in public auction. First petitioner purchased the property in the auction. The sale was confirmed and the petitioner deposited `1.67 crores towards the sale consideration. It appears that the 2nd respondent thereafter filed an appeal to set aside the sale. On an application made, in which he offered to pay the amount due to the Bank, Tribunal passed orders allowing him time. 2. According to the petitioners, payment was not made not only within the time asked for by the 2nd respondent, but also not within the time allowed by the Tribunal. According to the petitioners, on the last occassion viz., on 24/2/11, 2nd respondent furnished a demand draft for `50 lakhs and again filed another application seeking extension of time for making payment. On that day, the petitioners also submitted Ext.P9 application, requesting that the property should be delivered to them. OP(DRT) No.1063/2011 :2 : 3. The application made by the 2nd respondent for extension of time and Ext.P9 application made by the petitioners are both posted to 21/3/2011. In this writ petition, the prayer of the petitioners is to direct the 1st respondent Tribunal to expeditiously pass orders in the aforesaid two applications after hearing the parties concerned. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Bank. In the nature of the direction that is proposed to be passed, I do not think it necessary to put the 2nd respondent on notice. 5. If as stated by the petitioners, applications made by the 2nd respondent seeking enlargement of time and Ext.P9 application made by the petitioners for delivery of the auctioned property are posted to 21/3/2011, it is necessary that the Tribunal should pass orders, particularly having regard to the substantial amounts that have been paid by the petitioners. Therefore, I direct that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, the Tribunal shall, if not on 21/3/2011, on an earliest occasion, pass orders on the aforesaid two applications made by the petitioners and the 2nd respondent after hearing the counsel concerned. OP(DRT) No.1063/2011 :3 : 6. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the Tribunal for compliance. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the respective parties and it is entirely for the Tribunal to consider the same. O.P. is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp