M.K. RAMACHANDRA MENON Vs. P. CHATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a pawnbroker registered under the Money Lenders' Act, prays that Ext..P3 dated 24-11-1981, an order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Kerala Debt Relief Act, 1977 (Act 17 of 1977), hereinafter called the Act, may be quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ. The second respondent herein is the Appellate Authority and the third respondent is the Tribunal constituted under the Act. The first respondent had pledged a gold chain with the petitioner on 1-10-1974 taking a loan of Rs. 240/- with interest at the rate of 12 percent. According to the petitioner, the first respondent did not pay back the amount of loan and take back the pledged chain within the stipulated period of one year; and therefore after due notice to the first respondent, the petitioner sold the gold ornament in public auction and adjusted the sale proceeds towards the debt due. This was according to the petitioner some days before the date on which the Act came into force. The first respondent thereafter filed an "application under S.4(1) of the Act for delivery of possession of the gold chain pledged on the ground that he is a debtor coming within the ambit of the Act. This application was resisted by the petitioner who filed a counter Ext. P2 contending that within the period of one year from the date of transaction after giving notice to the first respondent, the gold ornament pledged by him was sold in public auction and the amount realised was adjusted towards the debt due and therefore there was no debt subsisting. It was also contended that the application filed by the first respondent was barred by limitation.

(2.) The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, dismissed the application upholding the contentions of the petitioner herein. An appeal was filed by the first respondent challenging the order of the Tribunal before the Sub-Collector, Kozhikode, the appellate authority constituted under the Act. There also the same contentions were raised by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal, set aside the order and allowed the application.

(3.) This appellate order is attacked by the counsel for the petitioner on the ground that it is an order passed without jurisdiction and is clearly illegal. The first respondent herein is absent and is not represented by any advocate.