IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6828 of 2009(W)
1. K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, T.C.35/106,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK O
3. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF
5. VALSALA MADHU, B-2-1, NO.37,
6. THE REGISTRAR, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :05/03/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.6828 of 2009-W
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 5th day of March, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner stood relegated from this Court to
the DRT on his challenge to certain
securitisation proceedings. Ext.P12 shows that
the securitisation application filed by the
petitioner has been returned defective on
different grounds. One of the reasons stated in
Ext.P12 is that it is not shown that measure
under Section 13(4) has been taken to dispossess
the applicant. If the petitioner has a case that
steps have been taken under Section 13(4), that
has to be brought to the notice of the DRT. Even
if the endorsement and the stand taken by the
Registrar of the DRT is wrong, the petitioner can
bring up the matter before the Presiding Officer
of the DRT. It is not for this Court to set the
board of the DRT right. Therefore, it is ordered
WP(C)6828/2009 -: 2 :-
that on re-presentation of the securitisation
application of the petitioner as evidenced by
Ext.P12, the Registrar of the DRT will look into
whether the same continues to be defective and if
so, list the matter before the Presiding Officer
of the DRT to hear the petitioner on the alleged
defects. All other questions are left open. The
writ petition is ordered accordingly.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/120309