C. Mohandas vs The Union Bank Of India Rep. By The on 12 June, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16286 of 2009(E)


1. C. MOHANDAS, AGED 43 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. LALITHA MOHAN, AGED 42 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA REP. BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :12/06/2009

 O R D E R
                   P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                     W.P. (C) No. 16286 of 2009
                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                Dated, this the 12th day of June, 2009

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court, presumably

aggrieved of the condition imposed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal,

Ernakulam while granting the interim order vide Ext.P3, seeking to

direct the Debt Recovery Tribunal to pass final orders in the S. A itself.

2. Obviously, the Debt Recovery Tribunal is not made a party to

the present proceedings. The steps taken by the Bank, invoking the

relevant provisions under SARFAESI Act were sought to be intercepted

by filing S.A. 93 of 2009 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal,

simultaneously filing the I.A. 352 of 2009 for interim relief. The Debt

Recovery Tribunal granted interim stay, on condition that the

petitioners remitted a sum of Rs. 80,000/- on or before 30.3.2009 and

another sum of Rs.80,000/- on or before 30.04.2009. Admittedly, the

petitioners did not comply with the said direction, nor have they filed

any petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for extension of time.

On the other hand, the case of the petitioners is that, they have filed a

petition for final hearing of the S.A. itself and it is simply kept pending

before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which in turn is sought to be

interfered by this Court.

3. Considering the nature of the grievance exposed herein,

absolutely no interference is called for and the petitioners cannot be

WP (C) No. 16286 of 2009
: 2 :

given any premium for the admitted default in complying with the

direction given by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, vide Ext.P3 order.

The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

kmd