RAJI C.G v. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER

petitioner is more than 5 Crores. Aggrieved by the action ₹ taken by the Bank invoking the Securitisation and OP (DRT) NO.6 OF 2024 3 Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the petitioner approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. The Debts Recovery Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the petitioner filed appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai invoking Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The appeal and waiver petition are numbered as Miscellaneous Appeal No.1134 of 2023 and I.A.No.530 of 2023.

4. By Ext.P4 judgment in O.P (DRT) No.342 of 2023, this Court while dismissing the O.P (DRT) stated that benefit of interim order dated 24.08.2023 passed in the original petition will continue to enure to the benefit of the petitioner till 04.12.2023, to which date the case of the petitioner stands posted before the Appellate Tribunal. Subsequently, the petitioner filed R.P.No.1307 of 2023 and in the said R.P., OP (DRT) NO.6 OF 2024 4 the time was further extended till 08.01.2024.

5. The petitioner would submit that though the petitioner took all efforts to get the stay petition and waiver petition listed and heard, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has not passed any orders. In fact, the petitioner has filed an I.A. to advance the waiver and stay petition, which has been assigned Diary Nos.52 of 2024. The said I.A. for advancement is also not posted before the Bench.

6. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that all these proceedings initiated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal by the petitioner is intended to prolong and defeat the recovery proceedings initiated by the Bank. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the O.P (DRT) is that the respondents did not file Vakalat and counter affidavit. The said allegation is incorrect. A counter affidavit was filed on 02.01.2024 as per S.R.No.68 of 2024. OP (DRT) NO.6 OF 2024 5

7. Counter affidavit filed in the Registry was returned for the reason not served copy on the other side. The respondent counsel took up the matter before the Registrar expressing that how counter affidavit can be served on the counsel stationed in Kerala. The respondents submitted that the first O.P (DRT) is filed seeking stay stating that the respondents have not filed Vakalat and counter affidavit. Actually, the respondents have filed Vakalat and counter affidavit. The O.P (DRT) is therefore without any merit and it is liable to be dismissed, contended the Standing Counsel.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

9. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Ernakulam contained in proceedings dated 13.07.2023. By the said proceedings, the Debts Recovery Tribunal has rejected the petitioner’s application for stay. It is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order that the OP (DRT) NO.6 OF 2024 6 petitioner has filed appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Along with the appeal, the petitioner has filed waiver petition and stay petition also.

10. When the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal did not pass any orders on the waiver petition and stay petition and when the case was posted to 29.02.2024, the petitioner has filed a separate application for advancement of the hearing of those waiver petition and stay petition. The said advancement petition has been assigned Diary No.52 of

2024. As the petitioner has moved advancement petition in respect of waiver petition and stay petition and as the respondents are to take over physical possession of the petitioner’s property, I am of the view that the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal shall expeditiously and promptly consider the advancement petition and based thereon, the waiver petition and stay petition. In the facts of the case, the O.P (DRT) is disposed of directing the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to consider OP (DRT) NO.6 OF 2024 7 the advancement petition filed by the petitioner as per Diary No.52 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Depending upon the outcome of the advancement petition, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal shall also consider waiver petition and stay petition filed by the petitioner. Sd/- N.NAGARESH JUDGE OP (DRT) NO.6 OF 2024 8 APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 6/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.1621/2023 IN S.A.NO.244/2023 DATED 13.07.2023 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.08.2023 IN O.P.(DRT).NO.310/2023 TRUE COPY OF WAIVER PETITION NUMBERED AS I.A.530/2023 IN MISC.APPEAL NO. TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.(DRT) NO. 342/2023 DATED 30.11.2023 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN R.P. NO. 1307/2023 DATED 18.12.2023 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R1 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 8-1-2024 IN AIR 1134 OF 2023 ON THE FILES OF DRAT CHENNAI