IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP (DRT).No. 4118 of 2011() ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SHOBY GEORGE, SON OF C.J.GEORGE, AGED 48 YEARS, CHIRAKEEKARAN HOUSE, 7/135, PUTHOOR ROAD, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD - 2. BY ADV. SRI.LEO GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, PALAKKAD BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PALAKKAD-678 002. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, PALAKKAD BRANCH, PALAKKAD - 678 002. 3. SMT. NISHA, K.127/11, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD - 678 002. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKKAD III VILLAGE, PALAKKAD - 678 002. BY ADV. SRI. A.V.THOMAS, SC THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OP(DRT) NO.4118/2011 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 11/3/2011. P2: COPY OF PAY-IN-SLIP ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF RS.5,000/- DTD. 17/03/2011. P2(A): COPY OF PAY-IN-SLIP ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF RS.10,000/- DTD. 20/04/2011. P2(B): COPY OF PAY-IN-SLIP ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF RS.10,000/- DTD. 04/05/2011. P2(C): COPY OF PAY-IN-SLIP ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF RS.50,000/- DTD. 20/05/2011. P2(D): COPY OF PAY-IN-SLIP ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF RS.10,000/- DTD. 8/07/2011. P2(E): COPY OF PAY-IN-SLIP ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF RS.4,000/- DTD. 29/09/2011. P2(F): COPY OF PAY-IN-SLIP ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF RS.5,000/- DTD. 20/10/2011. P2(G): COPY OF PAY-IN-SLIP ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF RS.30,000/- DTD. 12/12/2011. P3: COPY OF CMP NO.3139/2011 ON THE FILES OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD. P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER PURSUANT TO ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE ACT IN CMP NO.3139/2011 DTD. NIL. P5: COPY OF THE SECURITISATION APPLICATION WITHOUT ANNEXURES DTD.14/12/2011. P6: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED IN EXHIBIT P5 SECURITISATION APPLICATION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P.(DRT) No. 4118 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 14th day of December, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a defaulter in repayment of loan amounts due to respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 1 and 2 have initiated proceedings under the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 17 of the Act on 14.12.2011 along with a petition for stay of further proceedings. But since the Tribunal is not sitting today and tomorrow, the petitioner is unable to move the stay petition. In the meanwhile, respondents 1 and 2 are taking steps to possess the property belonging to the petitioner, which is the subject matter of the proceedings under the Act. The petitioner only seeks a breathing time to approach the Tribunal to get interim orders. 2. This is opposed by the counsel for the bank. He submits that the bank is even willing to regularise the loan account, if the defaulted amounts are paid. He even makes an offer that if the defaulted amounts are paid in six equal monthly instalments, then also the bank is prepared to accept the same to regularise the loan account and allow the petitioner to continue payment in accordance with the loan agreement on the due dates. But, still the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not in a position to raise funds to pay even that amount. Insofar as the petitioner only seeks some time to move the Tribunal, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to O.P.(DRT) No. 4118 of 2011 -: 2 :- respondents 1 and 2 to keep in abeyance the impugned orders for a period of one week so as to enable the petitioner to move the Tribunal for appropriate interim orders. However, if the petitioner is unable to get any interim orders within the said time from the Tribunal, it would be open to respondents 1 and 2 to continue proceedings as now initiated. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/