High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a co-obligant seeking a stay on auction sale of property. The court held that remedies lie with the Debt Recovery Tribunal and dismissed the writ to avoid weighing on tribunal proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 1851 of 2008(U) ------------------------OA.195/2006 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM ....................
PETITIONER:
JAYA BABY, AGED 38, W/O BABY CHACKO, KORATHARA HOUSE, KANNADI, PULIKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
ADDL. 5. K.A. THOMAS, ANATHANAM HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALY. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.29.01.08 IN IA NO.1529/08)
BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD SRI.SAJU JOHN
R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.V. JYOTHIPRASAD.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
W.P(C) No. 1851 OF 2008
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was a co-obligant in a transaction whereby respondents 2 and 3 and the petitioner availed certain loan facility from the 1st respondent. This led to proceedings under the SARFAESI Act with 4th respondent ultimately buying the property in auction. At the stage of consideration of this writ petition it was pointed out that the presiding officer is not available in the DRT and that therefore the petitioner may be given a breathing time to work out a possibility to retrieve item No.2 from the list of properties brought for sale by settling the transaction with the Bank and also the auction purchaser. It was accordingly that an interim order was granted on 15.01.08 granting stay of dispossession of item No.2 in Ext.P2. On 29.01.08, it was submitted by the counsel for parties, except the 1st respondent Bank, that they would consider negotiating and settling the transaction and as a last chance, the interim order of stay granted on 15.01.08 was extended by three weeks. As of now, the 5th respondent, auction purchaser has come on record saying that there could not be any
WPC No. 1851 OF 2008
2
settlement. Obviously therefore, the parties have to work out their remedies before the DRT in accordance with law, if appropriate proceedings are initiated and if the DRT entertains the same. Without prejudice to such right, this Writ Petition is only to be closed. However, learned counsel for the 1st respondent Bank expressed apprehension that issuance of interim order in this case would weigh with the Tribunal while considering the interim relief and also final relief in any proceedings which the petitioner may initiate under the SARFAESI Act. It has already been clarified that the interim order was issued only because there was an attempt to negotiate and settle the transaction out of court. Obviously that would not weigh either way, in the consideration of the petitioner's case on its merits.
With such clarification, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
ttb
WPC No. 1851 OF 2008
3
WPC No. 1851 OF 2008
4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this writing petition be admitted pending settlement of transaction between the petitioner and bank.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jaya Baby
The Federal Bank Ltd.
Thomas Chacko
Antony Chacko
M/s Vembanad Moder Rice Mills
K.A. Thomas
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
