IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1670 of 2011(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. JOSEPH ANTHRAPER XIX/681, MANGALATH HOUSE, MOOLEPADAM ROAD, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA. 2. TESSY JOSEPH ANTHRAPER, MANGALATH HOUSE, MOOLEPADAM ROAD, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.P.KESAVAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE INDIAN BANK, REPRESENTED BY SENIOR MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, K.A.P.COMPLEX, R.S.ROAD, ALUVA-683 101. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER OF THE INDIAN BANK, P.B.5673, PULLEPPADY JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM-682 035. BY ADV. SRI. S. EASWARAN, SC, INDIAN BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1670 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7 order issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in an interlocutory application, I.A.No.3182/10 filed in S.A.No.113/08. The securitization application filed by the petitioners under Section 17(1) is pending consideration and disposal before that Tribunal. Through the impugned order the Tribunal had dismissed the interim application, which was filed seeking direction against the respondent Bank to regularise the loan account on the basis of Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India in the year 2010. The Tribunal after elaborate consideration found that there is no valid ground to compel the respondent Bank to regularise the account, since the re- structuring or regularisation is purely a commercial decision left to the discretion of the Bank. The Tribunal found that, as such there is no valid ground to cause interference with the further course of action adopted by the respondent Bank. 2. I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P7 is an order W.P.(C).1670/2011 -2- which could not be interfered with by this court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is especially because of the fact that Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act provides an effective remedy of appeal against any order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Further, I find no patent illegality or lack of jurisdiction even to assume that this court can exercise the supervisory jurisdiction provided under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Under the above circumstances the writ petition fails. However, the remedy of appeal provided under the statute is left open to the petitioner. 4. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights of the petitioner if any to invoke appellate remedy against Ext.P7. If the appellate authority is approached seeking condonation of delay in filing any appeal, such authority shall also take note of the time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting the matter before this court, while considering the question regarding condonation of delay. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb