IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2855 of 2008(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- A.C.CHUMMAR, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO, AKKARA HOUSE, OLLUR P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, MISSION QUARTERS, T.B.ROAD, S.T.NAGAR, THRISSUR -1. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, FEDERAL BANK LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, MISSION QUARTERS, T.B.ROAD, S.T.NAGAR, THRISSUR-1. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, THRISSUR. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. A.C.CHACKO, S/O.AKKARA CHUMMAR, HOUSE NO. 9/3768, V.R.M.ROAD, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. HAFEEZ ABDULLA, S/O.ABDULLA, PADIKKAVEETTIL HOUSE, MUNDASSERY POST, CHOUGHAT, THRISSUR. 8. INDIANA BAKERY, MOTI UDYOG, MALAD, MUMBAI-64, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. 9. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 10. THE GENERAL MANAGER, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.KALLADA K.SUKUMARAN SMT.K.VIJAYAMMA SMT.D.P.RENU,CGC, SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) SR.G.P.SRI. V.T.K.MOHANAN SRI.PARAMESWARANNAIR, ASST.S.G. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.2855 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ This writ petition is preferred with a prayer to quash Ext.P5 notice and all further proceedings pursuant to the same and to direct the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P10 application. The Federal Bank Limited had published for sale of the property belonging to the writ petitioner by a paper publication lastly on 23.12.2007 to conduct sale of the property on 29.12.2007. It is submitted by the counsel for the writ petitioner that the said sale is vitiated for non-compliance of the statutory provisions and rules and that it is also in violation of the order of injunction passed by a civil court and other grounds. On the other hand, the Federal Bank as well as the purchaser in auction would contend that the procedural formalities have been properly complied with and therefore the sale is valid and that the purchaser has deposited about 13.5 crores of rupees and unless sale certificate is issued he would not be in a position to enjoy the property and therefore the writ W.P.(C) No.2855/2008 2 petition has to be dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the counsel for the bank had argued the matter at length. This court sitting in 226 jurisdiction is not expected to go into the factual matrix especially when there is provision allowing the parties to have efficacious remedies resorted to. The Debt Recovery Tribunal is such a Tribunal specially constituted for the purpose of banking transactions and it has got the power to decide about these matters. The learned counsel for the bank had taken me through the various stages whereby the bank has been put into considerable hardship and that the writ petitioner on so many occasions had promised to wipe off the liability and each time it has resulted only in non fulfillment of the undertaking and therefore ultimately it has resorted for a sale. There were earlier publications on 8.12.2007 etc. but ultimately the present subject matter which is in dispute the sale was published on 23.12.2007. The sale took place on 29.12.2007 and the sale proceeds have been received. Now it has to be further stated that the learned counsel for the writ petitioner strongly contends that in a sale under Rule 9 it is mandatory to give thirty days notice and similarly he had also invited my attention to an W.P.(C) No.2855/2008 3 order of a civil court which restrained the bank from conducting the sale. According to him in total disregard to the provisions of law and in violation of the order of injunction the sale has taken place which requires interference. As I stated earlier since these matters require detailed factual analysis and further as competent authority is the Debt Recovery Tribunal and already an application challenging the sale is filed in the form of Ext. P10. It is only just on the part of this court to direct the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam namely the 9th respondent to bestow its attention to Ext.P10 application, hear both sides and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. I am informed that the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai is in additional charge. As the matter requires urgent consideration though I am conscious of the limitations of the additional Tribunal, I direct the Tribunal to consider the matter and dispose it of, as expeditiously as possible, within a time limit of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. By any chance, the matter spills over, needless to say that 9th respondent is perfectly competent to dispose of the same. Since the dispute is between the petitioner, the bank and the auction purchaser it is unnecessary to drag other parties also W.P.(C) No.2855/2008 4 into the litigation. If anybody else is interested in the matter it is for them to resort to legal remedies available to them under law and in this particular Ext.P10 application the court need not adjudicate all those issues. 4. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Needless to say that the sale certificate which is directed not to be issued now, such direction will continue till the disposal of Ext.P10. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps