Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking extension of an interim stay after failing to deposit court-directed sums. Court dismissed petition as abuse of process and non-compliance.
Petition dismissed; no extension of stay granted; relief to Registrar to allow SARFAESI proceedings to proceed.
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
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1940
OP (DRT).No. 50 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER IN SA 66/2018 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER
ABDUL AZEES S/O. PAREED, VADAPPILLY HOUSE, AMBATTUKAVU, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.AYPE JOSEPH SRI.C.K.ABDUL JABBAR
RESPONDENTS:
BY STANDING COUNSEL
THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (DRT).No. 50 of 2018 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXT P1 COPY OF MEDICAL RECORDS DATED 6/5/2016 EXT P2 COPY OF SEC.13(20 NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT P3 COPY OF LETTER SEEKING OTS BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18/1/2018 EXT P4 COPY OF STAY ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT P5 COPY OF ORDER VACATING STAY BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27/3/2018 EXT P6 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF DISPOSSESSION ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, DATED 4.5.2018
JJJ
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
O.P.(DRT) No. 50 of 2018 (O)
Dated: 12th July 2018
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, a borrower in default, on 08.05.2018, obtained a conditional direction of stay of dispossession. He had to deposit Rs.1 crore within two months. He had not. But he came up with I.A. No.1170 of 2018, seeking extension of the interim stay.
O.P.(DRT) No.50/2018
2
favour or accommodation from the Court. Nor can he insist that the stay ought to be extended. The petitioner seeks three more months to comply with the interim direction.
"Without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the applicants in their SA which this Tribunal would be able to consider and appreciate only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the defendant company, with a view to grant an interim reprieve in the interregnum, the defendant company is directed to defer taking coercive possession of the secured asset if and only if the petitioners pays a sum of Rs.25,00,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) into the loan account maintained with the defendant on or before 28.02.2018 and
O.P.(DRT) No.50/2018
3
another sum of Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs only) is so paid on or before 30.03.2018. It is made clear that on the failure of the applicants to comply with the above conditions the defendant company would be free to surge ahead with its further SARFAESI measures in accordance with law."
(italics supplied)
he obtained another interim direction. Here, too, he has failed
to honour the condition.
O.P.(DRT) No.50/2018
4
this Court may direct the Tribunal to dispose of the S.A. expeditiously.
I see no merit in the writ petition. So I dismiss it.
Sd/DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE
12/07/2018 jjj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should extend an interim stay of dispossession when the petitioner failed to deposit the prescribed amount.
Whether filing a writ petition challenging the status quo while a stay application is pending is an abuse of process.
Whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 allows the Court to interdict contractual terms in financial transactions involving public money.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Abdul Azees S/O. Pareed
The Authorized Officer Phoenix ARC, Ltd
The Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal No.1, Ernakulam
Dama Seshadri Naidu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
