WP(C) No. 29354 of 2009 · Kerala High Court
Judgment
Cause title
BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------
1. P.V.UKKURU INTERNATIONAL TRADE REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR-JOSE UKKURU, XV/6049,T.D. WEST ROAD, KOCHI-682035.
2. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. ADV. SRI.P.KESAVAN NAIR FOR R1 SRI.K.G.CLEETUS FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PKK W.P.(C) NO. 29354/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT P1: COPY OF SECTION 13(2) NOTICE DT.4.10.2005 ISSUED BY THE BANK EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPLY DT.14.2.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO EXT.P1. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DT.20.2.2006 ISSUED BY THE BANK EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 16.3.2006 IN W.P(C) 6175/2006 EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 6.12.2006 IN I.A NO. 809/2004 IN O.A NO.93/2002 EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) 19288/07 EXT.P7: COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY FILED AS I.A NO. 921/06 IN S.A. NO. 29/06. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE EXT.P9: COPY OF I.A 1660/08 FILED IN S.A. NO. 29/2006 EXT.P10: COPY OF EXPARTE ORDER DT.12.11.2008 PASSED BY DRT-1,CHENNAI EXT.P11: COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE BANK IN I.A NO. 1660/2008 EXT.P12: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.21.11.2008 PASSED BY DRT-1, CHENNAI EXT.P13: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.16.12.2008 IN W.P(C) NO. 35418/2008 EXT.P14: COPY OF THE FRESH SALE NOTICE DT.17.12.2008 EXT.P15: COPY OF THE CONTEMPT PETITION (I.A NO. 66/09) EXT.P15(a): COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS SUBMITTED BY THIS PETITIONER TO I.A NO. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.3.2009 SENT BY THE FIRSTRESPONDENT EXT.P17: COPY OF THE I.A 2034/2009 FILED IN S.A NO. 29/2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P(C) NO. 29354 OF 2009
---------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009
JUDGMENT ----------------
Limited prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of S.A No. 29 of 2006 on an early basis. The petitioner is a Bank which provided loan facility to the first respondent. Consequent to default committed by the 1st respondent, proceedings under SARFAESI Act was initiated against immovable properties which is the secured assets. The first respondent approached the 2nd respondent tribunal and filed S.A No. 29 of 2006 under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. Along with the said application I.A No. 921 of 2006 was filed seeking stay against dispossession of the first respondent from the property. The 2nd respondent has not granted any stay order in the said application. Subsequently when the petitioner Bank proceeded with steps for selling the property, the first respondent again filed I.A No.1660 of 2008 in which the 2nd respondent Tribunal issued an ex-parte interim order of stay on 12-11-2008. Inspite of the W.P(C) NO. 29354 OF 2009 2 petitioner filed objection to the above I.A, the matter has not been heard and disposed of by the 2nd respondent and the interim stay is being extended periodically. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount involved in the loan transaction is about is more than Rs.10 Crores and the indefinite delay in disposing the above petition is causing severe prejudice to the Bank.
Having considered facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that in the interest of justice it is necessary to direct the tribunal for an early disposal of the Securitization Application.
In the result, the 2nd respondent tribunal is directed to consider and dispose of Securitization Application No. 29 of 2006 as early as possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE PKK
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.