IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 547 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.30585/2008 Dated 27/02/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): 4TH RESPONDENT ---------------------------- INDIANA BAKERY, MOTI UDYOG, MALAD, MUMBAI-64, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. A.C.CHUMMAR, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO, AKKARA HOUSE, OLLUR P.O., THRISSUR. 2. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, MISSION QUARTERS, T.B.ROAD, S.T.NAGAR, THRISSUR-1. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, THRISSUR. 5. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 6. THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI. 7. A.C.CHACKO, S/O.AKKARA CHUMMAR, HOUSE NO.#9/3768, V.R.M.ROAD, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY FOR R1 & R7 R2 & R3 BY ADV.SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2009 ALONG WITH W.P.C.NO.30585/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.547 of 2009 & W.P.(C) No.30585 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 6th March, 2009. J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. Adv.Sri.N.James Koshy takes notice for respondents 1 and 7. Adv.Sri.Mohan Jacob George appears for respondents 2 and 3. No notice need be issued to respondents 5 and 6, being the Tribunals. The appeal is at the instance of the 4th respondent in W.P.(C) No.30585/08. The 4th respondent is aggrieved since the learned Single Judge has passed an interim order extending it until further orders. The effect of the interim order is to restrain the 4th respondent from alienating the property. When the Writ Appeal came up before us, we found that in the nature of the order we propose to pass in the Appeal, nothing would survive in the writ petition, and hence with the consent of the parties, we have called for the Writ Petition also and the same is disposed of along with the Writ Appeal. The writ petition is filed with the following prayers :- (i) “Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the sale certificate issued by the 1st respondent in favour of the 4th respondent dated 30.3.2008 without informing the petitioner and 5th respondent and to quash the same; WA NO.547/09 & WP(C) 30585/08 2 (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the third respondent not to register any document of sale of property covered by Ext.P4 sale notice executed by the respondents 1, 2 and 4 in favour of any 3rd parties till the disposal of S.A.No.9/2008. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1, 2 and 4 not to alienate or make any charge on the property which is the subject matter of S.A.No.9/2008 or cause any damages to the buildings and structures thereon until S.A.No.9/2008 is finally disposed of by the 5th respondent; (iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 5th respondent to pass final orders on S.A.No.9/2008 and O.A.No.135/2004 as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court's judgment in W.P.(C) No.2855/08 and W.A.No.515/08 and also as per common order dated 1.8.2008 of the 6th respondent as per Ext.P14; (v) declare that the sale certificate issued by the second respondent in favour of the 4th respondent in respect of the properties of the petitioner covered by Ext.P4 notice is invalid non-est and unenforceable. (vi) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 5th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P17 application dated 12.10.2008 filed by the petitioner forthwith.” We do not think that this court at this stage should go into the contentions taken by the parties, and deal with the matter on merits, since the statutory forum is in seizin of the matter. There is already a direction issued by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, as per Ext.P14 to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam to dispose of S.A.No.9/2008 and O.A.135/2004 within WA NO.547/09 & WP(C) 30585/08 3 two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. It is pointed out that the said period expires by the end of this month. 2. Learned counsel appearing before us undertake that they will cooperate for the expeditious disposal of the S.A. and the O.A. before the Tribunal and they will not ask for any unnecessary adjournment so as to interfere with the schedule fixed by this court for the disposal of the cases. 3. Adv.Sri.S.Easwaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has an apprehension that the Debt Recovery Tribunal would go for a joint trial. We do not find any such direction for joint trial of the cases by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal has only directed to dispose of both cases within a time frame. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, and leaving open all the contentions, we dispose of the writ petition and the writ appeal with the following directions : There will be a direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam to dispose of O.A.135/2004 and S.A.9/08 on or before 30.4.2009. Till such time, there shall not be any WA NO.547/09 & WP(C) 30585/08 4 alienation of the auction schedule property, by the appellant. There will be a further direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam to dispose of the application for amendment of the written statement, which is now posted to 11.3.2009, before 16.3.2009. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 7 that in view of the time schedule fixed by this court, the other interlocutory applications will not be independently pursued, and that those applications need be considered only along with the original application, if required, of course subject to their maintainability. We make it clear that in any unlikely event of the original application being delayed, S.A.9/08 shall be disposed of on or before 30.4.2009. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.547 of 2009 & W.P.(C) No.30585 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 6th March, 2009.