IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26974 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- UCO BANK, M.G.ROAD,RAVIPURAM,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 016, REP.BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER SRI.MOHAN DOSS. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SMITHA JOSEPH,W/O.JOSEPH ANTHRAPER, PROPRIETRIX,M/S.SAGARA EXPORTS,11/279-J, IST FLOOR,NEAR KUMARATHUPADY TEMPLE,CHANDIROOR, ALAPPUZHA,NOW RESIDING AT ARANGAPARAMBIL, ARTHINKAL P.O.,CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. JOSEPH J.ANTHRAPER,S/O.ANTHRAPER, RESIDING AT ARANGAPARAMBIL, ARTHINKAL P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. M.J.THOMAS, S/O.ULAHANNAN, RESIDING AT THEKKEKARA, CHEERACHIRA P.O., CHANGANASSERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR (COPY SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.26974 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P9 interim order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam in a Securitisation Application No:375/09. The respondents 1 to 3 herein are the applicants before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Matter arises against the proceedings initiated by the petitioner Bank which proceed against the secured assets pertaining to a loan availed by respondents 1 to 3, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Respondents 1 to 3 had approached this court on an earlier occasion in a writ petition, which was disposed of by a common judgment in Writ Appeal No:2392/08 & WP(C) No:34894/2008, as per Ext.P1. This court directed the petitioner Bank to keep in abeyance the sale proceedings on condition of the defaulters remitting the amounts due under the loan account in monthly installments of Rs.5,00,000/- each starting from 20.2.2009 onwards. Subsequently they have approached this court on more than one occasion seeking extension of time and also review of the judgment, which were dismissed as evidenced by W.P.(C).26974/09-N 2 Exts.P2, P4 and P5. It is noticed from Ext.P3 that the defaulters made yet another attempt by filing a fresh writ petition which was also dismissed as withdrawn, at the instance of the petitioners therein. However, Ext.P1 Judgment and P5 order were taken up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition filed along with petition to condone delay. Through Ext.P6 order the Hon'ble Supreme Court had permitted to withdraw the SLP, reserving liberty to the parties to file petition under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 2. After Ext.P6 order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court respondents 1 to 3 had filed the securitisation application as evidenced by Ext.P7 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. They have also moved an interlocutory application seeking stay as I.A.No:1608/09 in which the Tribunal had issued Ext.P9 interim order directing to maintain status quo in respect of the secured assets, which is now under challenge. The impugned order was passed as early as on 3.8.09. It is submitted by the petitioner that they have filed counter affidavit before the Tribunal against the interlocutory application as early as on 8.8.2009. Contention of the petitioner Bank before the Tribunal is that the securitisation application itself is not maintainable in view of the decisions of this court in the various proceedings instituted by W.P.(C).26974/09-N 3 respondents 1 to 3. It is further contended that the securitisation application itself is time barred. It is evident that the applicants have filed a reply affidavit as well as a petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the securitisation application as evidenced by Ext.P11, before the Tribunal, subsequent to filing of the counter affidavit. 3. Complaint of the petitioner is that inspite of the pleadings being complete before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the matter is not heard so far and the interim order of status quo is being extended from time to time, since August 2009 onwards. Eventhough the petitioner Bank is challenging correctness of Ext.P9 order, I am not proposing to interfere with the interim order since the matter is yet to be decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. From Ext.P9 it is evident that it is an ad interim order of status quo issued at the time when the securitisation application was moved by respondents 1 to 3. It is for that Tribunal to consider the objections and to pass final orders on the interlocutory application, on the securitisation application itself, after hearing the parties concerned. It is true that indefinite continuance of an ad-interim order may cause prejudice to the petitioner Bank. 4. Under the above circumstances the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam is directed to consider the pass final orders W.P.(C).26974/09-N 4 on interlocutory application No:1608/09 filed in Securitisation Application No:375/09, at the earliest, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb