IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1132 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.30148/2007 DATED 07/04/2008 APPELLANT: APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS --------------------------------- 1. M/S. SHALIMAR RESTAURANT, 10/54, S.M. STREET, CALICUT REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI.T. SURESHAN, S/O. KUNHIKANDAN, KANAKKOTT HOUSE, CHELAVOOR.P.O, KOZHIKODE. 2. T. SURESHAN, S/O. KUNHIKANDAN, KARAKKOT NHOUSE, CHELAVOOR.P.O, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN(SR.) SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------ 1. M/S. FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, NADAKKAVU BRANCH, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER. 2. T. ASHOKAN, S/O. KUNHIKANDAN, VADAKOYIL HOUSE, CHELAVOOR.P.O, KOZHIKODE. 3. T. VIJAYAN, S/O. KUNHIKANDAN, VADAKOYIL HOUSE, CEHALVOOR.P.O, KOZHIKODE. 4. P. VIJAYAN, S/O. RARUKUTTY, PERUMPADAPPIL, MUKKAM.P.O, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV.N.P.SAMUEL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.A. No.1132 of 2008 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T P.R.RAMAN, J. This is an appeal filed against the direction of the learned Single Judge in the judgment in W.P.(C).No.30148/2007, dated 07/04/2008. The petitioners, aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 31 A of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, had approached this Court by filing the above writ petition. The main contention raised in that is that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the matter for the simple reason that the amount claimed as per the decree is only less than Rs.10 lakhs and therefore, based on the Full Bench decision in Smt.Sharadadevi v.State of Utter Pradesh and others [AIR 2002 Allahabad 1] the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. 2. The learned Single Judge found that this being an issue which the petitioners/appellants are entitled to raise before the Tribunal, thought fit not to interfere at that stage in exercise of W.A.No.1132/2008 -: 2 :- Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, rather left that to be raised as preliminary objection before the Tribunal itself. 3. We do not find in such circumstances that the judgment of the learned Single Judge calls for interference in an intra court appeal. So, however, we find that by giving such a direction, the learned Single Judge has given the discretion to the Tribunal to decide or not, the issue as a preliminary point. 4. We find the question as raised being a jurisdictional issue, has necessarily to be decided as a preliminary issue. Hence, there will be a direction to the Tribunal to decide the issue regarding its jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before proceeding to decide the other issues in the case. With the above clarification, this writ appeal is disposed of. P.R.RAMAN, Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms