IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32627 of 2008(H) -------------------------------------- SA.159/2008 OF DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- PREM VIJAYAN, PARVATHI NIVAS, CHANDANAKAVU JUNCTION, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL SMT.MANJU RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER. 2. V.MURALIKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR, MURALI KRISHNA FLOOR CO. PUSHPA VIHAR, NEAR DEVASSIA SAW MILL, KALARCODE, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.A.V.THOMAS, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.32627 of 2008-H = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the bank, the first respondent, I am not impressed to take the view that there is any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned order. The Debts Recovery Tribunal has admitted the securitisation application filed by the petitioner. The ground taken by the petitioner is that the security documents were not created by him and the signatures that are shown to be that of his do not even tally with his original and admitted signatures and still further that he was not even in India on the date of the alleged transactions. These are mixed questions of law and fact which may gain attention ultimately before the DRT and in supervisory and WP(C)32627/08 -: 2 :- extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 227 and 226, that too, against an interim order of the DRT, it is unnecessary for this Court to interfere notwithstanding the availability of a statutory remedy by way of an appeal to the DRAT under the SARFAESI Act. Be that as it may, the interest of the petitioner would stand protected, if the payment of both the instalments is made together on or before the date fixed by the Tribunal for the payment of second instalment and such amount is detained in a no-lien account, subject to final decision. It is so ordered. The writ petition is disposed of as above. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/