Joseph Anthraper Xix/68 vs The Indian Bank on 28 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
Joseph Anthraper Xix/68 vs The Indian Bank on 28 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *