IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 28665 of 2010(G) --------------------------------------- A.NO.16/2010 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JALEEL. A., S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT VILANGATTIL PADINJATTATHIL, PUTHIYAVILA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.LEO GEORGE, SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP), 8TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. 2. CANARA BANK, THAMARAKULAM BRANCH, KOLLAM-690 530. 3. SUJIR SURESH NAYAK, S/O.LATE SUJIR KESAV NAYAK, KASTHOORI BUILDING, CHURCH GATE RECLAMATION, MUMBAI-400 020, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER N. RAMANKUTTY NAIR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, 41-VRINDAVAN NAGAR, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM-690 008. 4. SUJIR DINESH NAYAK, S/O.LATE SUJIR KESAV NAYAK, KASTHOORI BUILDING, CHURCH GATE RECLAMATION, MUMBAI-400 020, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER N. RAMANKUTTY NAIR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, 41-VRINDAVAN NAGAR, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM-690 008. WP(C).No. 28665 of 2010(G) 5. SUJIR ANANTH NAYAK, S/O.LATE SUJIR KESAV NAYAK, KASTHOORI BUILDING, CHURCH GATE RECLAMATION, MUMBAI-400 020, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER N.RAMANKUTTY NAIR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, 41-VRINDAVAN NAGAR, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM-690 008. 6. SUJIR SAROJINI NAYAK, W/O.LATE SUJIR KESAV NAYAK, KASTHOORI BUILDING, CHURCH GATE RECLAMATION, MUMBAI-400 020, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER N.RAMANKUTTY NAIR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, 41-VRINDAVAN NAGAR, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM-690 008. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.P.GOPINATH, SRI.S.RAMU. R3 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 28665 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an auction purchaser of an item of property sold in auction by the Recovery Officer attached to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. Auction was conducted on 8.2.2010. Petitioner had remitted 25% of the bid amount, being Rs.1,04,26,010, inclusive of the EMD. Meanwhile, Ext.P1 judgment was issued by this court restraining further proceedings in the matter for a period of two weeks, from 22.2.2010, which will expire on 9.3.2010. According to the petitioner, since time stipulated for payment of the balance amount had fallen due during the period when the matter was under stay of this court, he could not remit the balance amount. However, after the expiry of the period of stay he had approached the recovery officer for payment of the balance amount on 9.3.2010. But it is alleged that the amount was refused to be accepted on the ground that there was delay in remitting the bid amount. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner had challenged the proceedings of the 1st respondent WP(C) .28665/2010 2 Recovery Officer before this court by filing WP(C).No.8173/2010. 2. During the pendency of the said writ petition the 1st respondent had cancelled the sale through Ext.P7 proceedings. Under such circumstances the said writ petition was disposed of by this court granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal invoking the appellate remedy as provided under section 30(1) of the RDB Act. Accordingly the petitioner filed Ext.P8 appeal before the DRT, Ernakulam. The Tribunal had passed Ext.P9 interim order wherein the petitioner was permitted to remit the entire balance amount and accordingly the petitioner had remitted the balance amount to the tune of Rs.3,00,75,000/- . Grievance of the petitioner is that the total amount of money paid by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.4,05,01,010/- is now lying in deposit with the 1st respondent and the petitioner was prevented from getting the property in question transferred in favour of him and from enjoying property. It is complained that the disposal of Ext.P8 appeal before the DRT is being delayed indefinitely causing prejudice and hardship to the petitioner. It is alleged that respondents herein are seeking unnecessary adjournments in the matter and therefore the petitioner is praying for a direction for an early WP(C) .28665/2010 3 disposal of the matter by the DRT. 3. I notice that Ext.P8 appeal was filed before the DRT as early as in April 2010. It is further noticed that the interim order under Ext.P9 was issued by that Tribunal on 28.7.2010. 4. Under such circumstances it is only just and proper to have a final decision on the issue by disposal of the appeal in question, at the earliest. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the Tribunal to take earnest efforts to dispose of the matter on a earlier basis. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the DRT, Ernakulam to consider and dispose of the Appeal No.16/2010 at the earliest possible, after affording opportunity to all parties concerned, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .28665/2010 4