IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP (DRT).No. 625 of 2011(O) --------------------------- (ORDER DTD.3.2.2001 IN I.A.NO.3301/2010 IN S.A.NO.272/2010 OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM) PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. K.C.MATHAI,AGED 84 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO,PROPRIETOR, M/S.EMBEE TRADERS, KARAYAMPARAMBU PO, KARUKUTTY,ANGAMALY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. A.P.VARGHESE, PYNADATH AYYAMPILLIL, HOUSE NO.86,PRIYA NAGAR HOUSING COLONY, ANGAMALY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER(AUTHORIZED OFFICER) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, ARMB, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682 011. 2. THE CIRCLE HEAD, CIRCLE OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,14/1461, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682 011. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ANGAMALY BRANCH, BANK JUNCTION, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 572. ADV. SRI.K.S.DILIP FOR R2-3 THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- O.P(DRT) No.625 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P3, P7 and P9 notices issued by the respondents. The impugned notices were issued under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). In Ext.P3, demand for payment of the arrears was made under Section 13(2) of the Act. In Ext.P7 the petitioners were intimated about steps taken under Section 13(4). Ext.P9 is a notice published proclaiming sale of the immovable property, which is the secured asset. The petitioners inter alia seek direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal to consider the illegality and correctness of the above said notices. 2. The history of the case reveals that, when Ext.P3 notice was issued, the 1st petitioner had approached this Court raising a complaint that the reply given by the O.P(DRT) No.625 of 2011 2 petitioners were not considered and that the request made to provide instalment facility was not acceded to. The said writ petition, W.P(C) No.34286/2007, was disposed through Ext.P4 judgment. From Ext.P4, it is revealed that, irrespective of the controversy raised, the petitioners sought to permit payment through instalments and on that basis this Court had shown indulgence in affording opportunity to the petitioners to pay off the amounts in a phased manner. The petitioners were directed to make payment of the entire amounts due in 8 (eight) equal monthly instalments starting from 1st week of March 2008 onwards. 3. Contention of the petitioners is that, eventhough a request was made to the respondent Bank for furnishing details regarding the exact figure of monthly instalments to be remitted, no intimation was given by the respondents. However, it is claimed that the petitioners have remitted six instalments in accordance with the directions contained in Ext.P4. It is further evident that after the lapse of about O.P(DRT) No.625 of 2011 3 two years, inspite of the relinquishment made as recorded in Ext.P4, the petitioners had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal by virtue of an application filed under Section 17(1), challenging the liability. From Ext.P8 it is evident that the Tribunal had entertained the application and granted an interim stay against further proceedings. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that, subsequently the Tribunal had modified the interim order insisting upon condition for payment of a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and the petitioners had remitted the said amount. It is further conceded that the matter is now pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. However, according to the petitioners the interim order was thereafter vacated since the petitioners had failed to settle the account with the Bank as directed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 4. In the present writ petition the petitioners are raising contentions to the effect that they were willing to comply with the conditions stipulated in Ext.P4 judgment and the amount could not be remitted since the respondent O.P(DRT) No.625 of 2011 4 Bank was not ready to accept payment of the instalments on the basis of a claim that the petitioners should also remit amounts due in another loan account, which was availed by the 2nd petitioner. The petitioners are contending that the respondents are not entitled to proceed with further recovery steps since there is failure on the part of them in furnishing the statement as directed. 5. Along with the statement filed on behalf of the respondents, copies of orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 8.11.2010 and 22.12.2010 are produced as Annexure 2 and 3. It is evident that the interim order granted by the Tribunal was vacated on 8.11.2010 consequent to failure of the petitioners in remitting the amount of Rs.5 lakhs stipulated thereunder. It is evident from the order dt.22.12.2010 that the Tribunal had refused to show any further indulgence, unless and until the petitioners comply with the condition for payment of Rs.5 lakhs. According to the petitioners thereafter the payment was effected as evidenced from Ext.P11 receipt, on O.P(DRT) No.625 of 2011 5 11.1.2011. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, it is evident that the petitioners had raised disputes regarding settlement of the amounts due under the account in question, inspite of the fact that he had relinquished such challenges before this Court, while disposing the earlier writ petition, as evidenced from Ext.P4 judgment. In view of the said situation the petitioners are not at all entitled to seek any further indulgence from this Court and no further writ petition is maintainable. However, it is evident that the matter is now pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. If the petitioners had already complied with the conditions stipulated by that Tribunal, it is for them to approach the Tribunal to seek appropriate orders for continuation of interim order. I am not expressing any opinion regarding merits of the contentions raised before the Tribunal. I am of the view that the petitioners can pursue the matter before the Debt Recovery Tribunal if the challenges raised are sustainable. However, no interference in this writ petition O.P(DRT) No.625 of 2011 6 is warranted. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioners to pursue the matter before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab