JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The petitioner filed Ext.P4 interlocutory application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam for
setting aside sale conducted on 29/11/2010 pursuant
to the recovery certificate issued by the Debts
Recovery Tribunal in O.A. No 15/2007. Ext.P5
application for condoning delay was also filed under
Sec. 19 (25) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks
and Financial Institutions Act. The Recovery Officer,
Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam by Ext.P9
dismissed both the applications. Challenging Ext.P9,
the petitioner filed Ext.P10 appeal before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam. Contenting that the
appeal preferred by the petitioner is not taken up for
consideration by the DRT since there was no Presiding
Officer appointed, the petitioner approached this Court
by filing W.P. (c) No.3853/2022 and this Court passed
an interim order directing not to dispossess the
petitioner from the property. After the DRT-II
commenced functioning, this Court by Ext.P11
Judgment disposed of the writ petition giving liberty to
the petitioner to move the DRT-II, Ernakulam,
appropriately for the reliefs which the petitioner has
prayed for in the said writ petition. To enable the
petitioner to approach the DRT-II, Ernakulam as
above, this Court extended the interim order for a
period of one month and further directed the DRT to
dispose of the appeal within 3 months. By Ext.P12
Judgment the Division Bench of this Court modified
Ext.P11 Judgment by extending the interim order till
the disposal of Ext.P10 appeal.
(2.)In Ext.P10 appeal, the Registry of the Tribunal noted certain defects, particularly that the
petitioner had not deposited with the Tribunal fifty
percent of the amount of debt due as determined by
the Tribunal. The petitioner contended that the
petitioner being not a borrower, the petitioner is not
required to deposit fifty percent of the amount of debt
due as provided under Sec. 30A of the Recovery of
Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (the 'Act' for short).
The Registry by Ext.P13 order declined to register the
appeal as the petitioner did not deposit fifty percent of
dues as provided under sec. 30A of the Act. Against
Ext.P13 order of the Registry, the petitioner preferred
an appeal before the Tribunal and the DRT-II by
Ext.P14 Order rejected the appeal and the petitioner
was granted one week time to comply with the
provisions of Sec. 30 A of the Act, failing which it
was directed that Ext.P13 order will be treated as
conclusive. In Ext.P14, the DRT found that since the
loan was taken by the mother of the petitioner, the
petitioner stepped into the shoes of her mother in
claiming right over the properties and therefore the
petitioner cannot have independent right to raise claim
over the property in question and as such she cannot
claim any exemption to comply with the mandatory
pre-deposit of amount contemplated under sec. 30A
of the Act. It is challenging Ext.P14 order of DRT-II
that the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
(3.)According to the petitioner, the petitioner is not a person from whom any amount of debt is due to
the bank, and therefore the petitioner is not liable to
remit the fifty percent of the amount of debt due. It is
further contended that there is no ' amount ' appealed
against in Ext.P10 appeal and in the light of the
decision of this Court in Dhileep and others v. Debts
Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam & others reported
in 2008 (1) KHC 482, the petitioner is not liable to
make the pre-deposit.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.