SHYJU ANTONY Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am not proposing to write long in this judgment, since I understand that the real grievance of the petitioner is that the stay application filed by him in a Securitisation Application, numbered as S.A.No.52 of 2017, is still pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Kerala (DRT for brevity), without orders.

(2.) Shri.A.S.P.Kurup, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank, submits that it is not fully correct to say that the IA is still pending, because it was considered by the DRT and the earlier order of stay granted therein was not extended on 20/02/2019. He says that the IA is next posted to 04/03/2019. He adds that since the DRT has now refused to extend the stay earlier granted, it is not justified for the petitioner to have approached this Court in this writ petition, bypassing his alternative remedies.

(3.) Even when I hear Shri.A.S.P.Kurup as afore, it is obvious that the DRT has not stated any reasons as to why the earlier order of stay has not been extended on 20/02/2019. I refrain from saying anything further because I am told that the matter is next listed on 04/03/2019 and am, therefore of the firm view that until the DRT passes a reasoned order on the stay application, it will not be justified for the Bank to take further action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity).