Sheeba Dileep vs South Indian Bank Ltd

C.S Dias, J

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the property for a period of 45 days to enable the petitioner to move the Appellate Forum as provided under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

The petitioner’s case is that, the petitioner has been served with Ext P2 notice by the Advocate Commissioner stating that the possession of the secured assets will be taken on 17.5.2023. The petitioner has got a statutory right of appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (in short, ‘Tribunal’). The petitioner is desirous of exercising the said right. However, the petitioner apprehends that the respondents may dispossess her in the mean time. Hence, the writ petition.

When the writ petition came up for admission on 16.5.2023, this Court passed the following interim order:

“The petitioner challenges Ext P2 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner limited his prayer seeking one week’s time to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and also prays for stay of dispossession in the property.

The learned Standing Counsel submits that the prayer can be allowed.

The petitioner if so advised, may approach the DRT within a week.

Coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one week.”

Heard; Sri.Sadchith P Kurup, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Cyriac James, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

Sri.Sadchith Kurup submitted that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner has already approached the Tribunal and has filed SA No.237/2023. The petitioner has also filed IA No.1581/2023 to stay further proceedings pursuant to Ext P2 notice. But, the Tribunal has posted the application to 1.6.2023. Therefore, the petitioner is left remediless. Hence, the Tribunal may be directed to consider the stay petition as expeditiously as possible and until such time the coercive proceedings may be directed to be kept in abeyance, failing which the petitioner would cause severe prejudice and hardship.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record, particularly the fact that this Court by its interim order dated 16.5.2023 had permitted the petitioner to approach the Tribunal and work out her statutory remedy and also directed coercive proceedings to be kept in abeyance, which was not objected to by the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, I am of the view that the present prayer sought for by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is only to be granted otherwise there would be no purpose in the appeal being prosecuted before the Tribunal. Thus, I am inclined to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct the Tribunal to consider and dispose of IA No.1581/2023 as expeditiously as possible.

Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed as follows:

(i) The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam is directed to consider and dispose of IA No.1581/2023 filed in SA No.237/2023, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.

(ii) Until such time orders are passed on IA No.1581/2023, all further coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext P2 shall stand deferred.