BY AD v. S.SUNIL KUMAR

SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, R1 AND R2 THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (DRT) NO.27 of 2024 3 JUDGMENT Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2024 The petitioner has approached this Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam to hear Ext.P3 Stay Petition and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law.

The petitioner states that he has availed two financial advances / loans from the Federal Bank. The petitioner’s only residential building was mortgaged with the respondents for availing the loans. Due to Covid-19 pandemic and consequent lock-down, the petitioner could not repay the loan amounts promptly. The petitioner was afflicted with other health issues also during the time.

The respondents approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thrissur under Section 14 of the OP (DRT) NO.27 of 2024 4 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and has obtained an order appointing Advocate Commissioner to assist the Bank to take over the residential property of the petitioner, which stands mortgaged. The Advocate Commissioner has issued Ext.P1 notice to the petitioner.

The petitioner submits that the petitioner has approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam filing Ext.P2 Securitisation Application. The petitioner has also filed Ext.P3 Stay Petition. Unless Exts.P2 and P3 applications are considered by the Tribunal, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury. If the Advocate Commissioner proceeds to take over physical possession of the residential property of the petitioner before the Tribunal considers the Stay Petition, it would result in showing the petitioner discretion. Therefore, this Court shall direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal to dispose of the Stay Petition OP (DRT) NO.27 of 2024 5 expeditiously and to restrain the respondents from proceeding against the petitioner till the Stay Petition is considered, contends the counsel for the petitioner.

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the Bank and resisted the Original Petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that the total outstanding amount payable by the petitioner is more than ₹1,10,00,000/- as on

04.10.2023. The Stay Petition and Securitisation Application preferred by the petitioner stand posted before the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 29.02.2024.

As the petitioner has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal filing SA and IA for stay, it is for the petitioner to pursue his remedies before the Tribunal. If the respondents are proceeding against the petitioner, the petitioner has the option to advance the hearing of his SA and IA before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. OP (DRT) NO.27 of 2024 6 In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to give any mandatory direction in this case. The OP (DRT) is dismissed. Sd/- N.NAGARESH JUDGE OP (DRT) NO.27 of 2024 7 APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 27/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION NOTICE IN CRLMP NO-7880/2023 ON THE FILES OF HONBLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR DATED 13.11.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE SECURITIZATION APPLICATION ALONG WITH ANNEXURES AS SA NO-667/2023 FILED BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II ERNAKULAM DATED 24.11.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION AS IA NO-3827/2023 IN SA NO-667/2023 FILED BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II ERNAKULAM DATED 24.11.2023