IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32627 of 2008(H)
1. PREM VIJAYAN, PARVATHI NIVAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH
... Respondent
2. V.MURALIKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :11/11/2008
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.32627 of 2008-H
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the bank,
the first respondent, I am not impressed to take
the view that there is any jurisdictional error
or legal infirmity in the impugned order. The
Debts Recovery Tribunal has admitted the
securitisation application filed by the
petitioner. The ground taken by the petitioner is
that the security documents were not created by
him and the signatures that are shown to be that
of his do not even tally with his original and
admitted signatures and still further that he was
not even in India on the date of the alleged
transactions. These are mixed questions of law
and fact which may gain attention ultimately
before the DRT and in supervisory and
WP(C)32627/08 -: 2 :-
extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 227
and 226, that too, against an interim order of
the DRT, it is unnecessary for this Court to
interfere notwithstanding the availability of a
statutory remedy by way of an appeal to the DRAT
under the SARFAESI Act. Be that as it may, the
interest of the petitioner would stand
protected, if the payment of both the
instalments is made together on or before the
date fixed by the Tribunal for the payment of
second instalment and such amount is detained in
a no-lien account, subject to final decision.
It is so ordered. The writ petition is disposed
of as above.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/