The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a one-month postponement of a sale certificate issued in a bank recovery case. The court held the petition was not maintainable as there was no reason to intervene after prior judgments by this Court confirmed the orders of the Recovery Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal.
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 ANTONY DOMINIC
THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/13TH MAGHA 1933
OPDRT.No. 4313 of 2011 (O)
PETITIONER(S):
1. JOY THOMAS, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, POST BOX NO.4489, ERNAKULAM NORTH PO, KOCHI 682018
2. DILFINA JOY, W/O.JOY THOMAS, AGED 49 YEARS, POST BOX NO.4489, ERNAKULAM NORTH PO, KOCHI 682018.
3. SMT.V.S.MARY, AGED 76 YEARS, KOLENCHERRY HOUSE, MATHILAKAM PO, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR DT.
BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO
RESPONDENT(S):
2. THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI 600001.
3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM 682016.
4. K.T.RAJEEV, S/O.THANKAPPAN, HOUSE NO.10/1203, AMARAVATHY, KOCHI 682001.
(ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT 13.1.12 IN IA NO.20682/11)
R1 BY SRI.GEORGE THOMAS(MEVADA), SC, SBI
THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(DRT) NO.4313/11
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(DRT) NO.3611/2011, DATED 14.11.2011.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMEMY IN WA NO.1818/11 DT 30.11.11.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION, DATED NIL, ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE ADVOCATE ON RECORD.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.2710/11 IN OA NO.1573/1998, DT 2.12.2011 ON THE FILE OF THE DRT, ERNAKULAM.
//True Copy//
PA to Judge
Rp
ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ O.P.(DRT) NO. 4313 OF 2011
====================
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The prayers sought in the original petition reads as under;
(i) writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or forbidding the 3rd respondent to postpone the issue of sale certificate pursuant to dismissal of Ext.P4 application by a period of one month to enable the petitioners to seek appropriate relief from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) D.No.40663/2011.
(ii) issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to keep all further proceedings pursuant to the issue of sale certificate in abeyance till the SLP is taken up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
OP (DRT) No.4313/11
:2 :
dismissed by Ext.P2. After the judgment was rendered, the counsel for the petitioners sought a direction to the Bank to postpone the issuance of sale certificate by one month in order to settle the dispute outside the Court. This request of the petitioners was considered and rejected by the Division Bench by order dated 1st of December, 2011, taking note of the fact that sale was conducted way back in January, 2010 and that the successful bidder was not a party to the writ proceedings and appeal. Petitioners say that thereafter they have filed SLP(C)D. NO.40663/11 before the Apex Court and that the SLP has not been listed for admission so far. It is in this background the original petition has been fled with the prayers which are mentioned earlier.
OP (DRT) No.4313/11
:3 :
the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, I do not see any reason to entertain the Original petition.
Original petition is accordingly dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an original petition seeking ad hoc arrangement to postpone sale certificate pending Supreme Court admission of SLP is maintainable subsequent to judgments by this Court confirming the Tribuna
Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition after the issuance of sale certificate was confirmed in the original petition and appeal.
JOY THOMAS
DILFINA JOY
SMT.V.S.MARY
STATE BANK OF INDIA, COCHIN-1 BRANCH
THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
