Kerala High Court
A.A.Joseph vs Sri.Anil K.Mathew
Author: A.M. Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/18TH SRAVANA, 1938
OP (DRT).No. 52 of 2016 (O)
----------------------------
SA.NO. 3/2005 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
----------------
PETITIONER:
--------------------
A.A.JOSEPH, S/O LATE A.L.ABRAHAM,
ARAKKATHARA HOUSE, CHEMBUMKKU,
ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 030.
BY ADV. SRI.V.BIJU JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. SRI.ANIL K.MATHEW,
S/O.LATE MATHEW, KANJIRAPPADATHU KILUTHATTIL,
KANGARAPADY, KOCHI-21, KERALA-682 021.
2. THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED,
HARBOUR VIEW RESIDENCY,OPPOSITE SHIPYARD,M.G.ROAD,
ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 015,KERALA.
REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
3. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED,
HARBOUR VIEW RESIDENCY,OPPOSITE SHIPYARD,M.G.ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 015,KERALA.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.C.ELDHO
SRI.JIJO THOMAS
SRI.MALLENATHAN.M.
THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 09-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
OP (DRT).No. 52 of 2016 (O)
-----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 8.1.2016 IN S.A.NO.3 OF 2005 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM WITHOUT ANNEXURES FILED
BEFORE THE HON'BLE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION NO.I.A.NO.571/2016 IN SA.3/2005
AND AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE DEBTS RECOVERY
TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM
P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-03-2016 IN I.A.571 OF 2016 PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM.
P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
------------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
--------------------------------------
O.P.(DRT).No.52 of 2016
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this, the 9th day of August, 2016
J U D G M E N T
This original petition is filed seeking to stay the further proceedings in S.A.No.3 of 2005 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam and also seeking to quash the order dated 14.03.2016 in I.A.No.571 of 2016 in S.A.No.3 of 2005.
2. By order dated 14.03.2016 in I.A.No.571 of 2016 in S.A.No.3 of 2005, the Debts Recovery Tribunal had set aside the sale conducted by the respondent Bank in favour of the petitioner. It is inter alia observed that there is non compliance of the statutory notice to the borrower and that the Bank had not complied with the other requirements as well, especially getting the value of the property through an approved valuer. Accordingly, the Tribunal observed that the sale held on 17.09.2004 is per se illegal and the sale certificate executed on 18.10.2004 which was registered on 02.12.2004 in favour of the petitioner is null and void for non compliance with the mandatory legal requirements of Rule 8(5) and Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
3. As far as the petitioner is concerned, who is the auction purchaser, there was a direction to refund the sale amount of 6,50,001/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment. I.A.No.571 of 2016 was filed by the O.P.(DRT).No.52 of 2016 2 petitioner for staying the operation of order dated 08.01.2016, which was dismissed by the Tribunal as per order dated 14.03.2016.
4. According to the petitioner, he had preferred an appeal against the order dated 08.01.2016 in S.A.No.3 of 2005 before the Appellate Tribunal at Chennai, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. The petitioner seeks for stay of operation of the order in S.A.No.3 of 2005 until a final decision is taken by the appellate Tribunal.
5. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner had already availed of the appellate remedy, I don't think that this Court should interfere in the matter at this stage of proceedings. The Tribunal has already set aside the sale and if the appellate authority modifies the said order in the appeal filed by the petitioner, definitely, the petitioner will be entitled to get appropriate reliefs. That apart, the Chennai Bench is functioning though the officer is coming from Allahabad.
Under such circumstances, I don't think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the present facts of the case.
This O.P(DRT) is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE AV