IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16286 of 2009(E) -------------------------------------- SA.NO.93/2009 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. C. MOHANDAS, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. CHELLAPPAN NADAR, RESIDING AT SHAJI BHAVAN, ERUMAKUZHY, KOTTUR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. LALITHA MOHAN, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. MOHANDAS, RESIDING AT SHAJI BHAVAN, ERUMAKUZHY, KOTTUR. P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.A.F.SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G. ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR. A.S.P. KURUP, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 16286 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 12th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners have approached this Court, presumably aggrieved of the condition imposed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam while granting the interim order vide Ext.P3, seeking to direct the Debt Recovery Tribunal to pass final orders in the S. A itself. 2. Obviously, the Debt Recovery Tribunal is not made a party to the present proceedings. The steps taken by the Bank, invoking the relevant provisions under SARFAESI Act were sought to be intercepted by filing S.A. 93 of 2009 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, simultaneously filing the I.A. 352 of 2009 for interim relief. The Debt Recovery Tribunal granted interim stay, on condition that the petitioners remitted a sum of Rs. 80,000/- on or before 30.3.2009 and another sum of Rs.80,000/- on or before 30.04.2009. Admittedly, the petitioners did not comply with the said direction, nor have they filed any petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for extension of time. On the other hand, the case of the petitioners is that, they have filed a petition for final hearing of the S.A. itself and it is simply kept pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which in turn is sought to be interfered by this Court. 3. Considering the nature of the grievance exposed herein, absolutely no interference is called for and the petitioners cannot be WP (C) No. 16286 of 2009 : 2 : given any premium for the admitted default in complying with the direction given by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, vide Ext.P3 order. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd