Sebastian Durom v. Authorised Officer, SBI
Case brief
What is this about?
Held that the petitioner, an auction purchaser facing forfeiture of deposit, should approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The High Court stayed the writ petition and granted liberty to approach the Tribunal with condoned delay.
What did the court decide?
Writ petition closed granting liberty to approach DRT under Section 17(1) with condonation of delay; final determination left open.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 1882 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
SEBASTIAN DUROM
S/O.JOSEPH DUROM, CHULLICKAL HOUSE 16/1342, KOCHUPALLY
ROAD, THOPPUMPADY, COCHIN - 5, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
R.GOPAN
SHAJIN S.HAMEED
RESPONDENTS:
1 AUTHORISED OFFICER, SBI STATE BANK OF INDIA, 7TH FLOOR, VENKARATHU TOWERS, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2RANI THOMAS,
OLASSAYIL MK RAGHAVAN ROAD, KOOVAPPADAM,
KOCHI - 682 002.
BY ADVS.
SMT.S.AMBILY
SRI.BIJU JOSEPH
SRI.BIJU JOSEPH
SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SR.
SRI.ROBIN THOMAS PHILIP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the proper remedy against forfeiture of security deposit by a secured creditor is an approach to the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act rather than a writ petition.
Whether a debt recovery tribunal can condone delay in filing an application under Section 17(1) where the matter has been pending for a long time.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
SEBASTIAN DUROM
- respondent
1 AUTHORISED OFFICER, SBI STATE BANK OF INDIA
- respondent
RANI THOMAS
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court