The court dismissed the order petition challenging a Debt Recovery Tribunal's order attaching a vehicle. It held that the CDRF lacks jurisdiction over matters under the RDDBFI Act and directed the petitioner to seek vacating the order from the Tribunal.
null
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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937
OP (DRT).No. 161 of 2015 (O)
OA.NO.412/2015 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:
SIVANANDAN KELOTH, DEVARKAD HOUSE, NELLINI, CHAVASSERY, MATTANNOOR P.O., KANNUR - 670 702.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:
THE HDFC BANK LTD., KANNUR BRANCH, NEAR TRAINING SCHOOL, KANNUR - 670 002.
BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH, SC
THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
OP (DRT).No. 161 of 2015 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
--------------------------------------
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT CC NO.143/2015.
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.2.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Ms v/
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
O.P.(DRT). No. 161 of 2015
===================================================== Dated this the 17th day of December, 2015
JUDGMENT
In this OP(DRT) the petitioner, who is the defendant and respondent in OA No.412 of 2015, is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, directing the attachment and taking possession of a vehicle belonging to the petitioner. In the OP(DRT), the contention of the petitioner is essentially that the said order of the DRT was passed, during the pendency of an injunction order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum restraining the respondent from repossessing the vehicle.
The proceedings before the DRT are under the RDDBFI Act, 1993 and in matters coming under the jurisdiction of the DRT under the aforesaid Act, Ext.P3 order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum cannot be an obstacle to the passing of orders by the Tribunal since the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum does not have the jurisdiction in matters falling under the
O.P.(DRT). No. 161 of 2015
-2-
RDDBFI Act. Accordingly, I am of the view that the remedy of the petitioner against Ext.P4 order lies in approaching the DRT and seeking to vacate the order so passed by the Tribunal. Relegating the petitioner to the aforesaid remedy, this OP(DRT) is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
das /17.12.15
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an injunction order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum restraining repossession is an obstacle to an order for attachment deemed passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the RDD
Whether the remedy against the Debt Recovery Tribunal's order lies in approaching the Tribunal itself rather than in this court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SIVANANDAN KELOTH
THE HDFC BANK LTD.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
