IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1670 of 2011(G)
1. JOSEPH ANTHRAPER XIX/681,
... Petitioner
2. TESSY JOSEPH ANTHRAPER,
Vs
1. THE INDIAN BANK,
... Respondent
2. AUTHORISED OFFICER OF THE
For Petitioner :SRI.P.KESAVAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :28/01/2011
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.1670 of 2011
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
———————-
Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7
order issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in an interlocutory
application, I.A.No.3182/10 filed in S.A.No.113/08. The
securitization application filed by the petitioners under Section
17(1) is pending consideration and disposal before that
Tribunal. Through the impugned order the Tribunal had
dismissed the interim application, which was filed seeking
direction against the respondent Bank to regularise the loan
account on the basis of Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of
India in the year 2010. The Tribunal after elaborate
consideration found that there is no valid ground to compel the
respondent Bank to regularise the account, since the re-
structuring or regularisation is purely a commercial decision left
to the discretion of the Bank. The Tribunal found that, as such
there is no valid ground to cause interference with the further
course of action adopted by the respondent Bank.
2. I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P7 is an order
W.P.(C).1670/2011 -2-
which could not be interfered with by this court in exercise of
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is
especially because of the fact that Section 18 of the SARFAESI
Act provides an effective remedy of appeal against any order
passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Further, I find no patent
illegality or lack of jurisdiction even to assume that this court
can exercise the supervisory jurisdiction provided under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Under the above circumstances the writ petition fails.
However, the remedy of appeal provided under the statute is left
open to the petitioner.
4. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed without
prejudice to rights of the petitioner if any to invoke appellate
remedy against Ext.P7. If the appellate authority is approached
seeking condonation of delay in filing any appeal, such authority
shall also take note of the time spent by the petitioner in
prosecuting the matter before this court, while considering the
question regarding condonation of delay.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb