RAUN JOSEPH Vs. STANDARD CHARTERED PLC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The singular allegation made by the petitioner in this case is that, eventhough, a Securisation Application, numbered as S.A. No. 401/2018, has already been filed by him before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, (DRT for short), the Bank is attempting to take action under the SARFAESI Act in a hasty manner. The petitioner says that the DRT has now listed the Stay Application, filed along with the SA and asserts that the Bank must, therefore, await orders on the said Application before they take further action, including under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

(2.) The learned standing counsel for the respondent Bank, Sri. V. Suresh Kumar, submits that the allegations of the petitioner is completely unfounded and that the Bank is acting only in terms of law. He, however, admits that the petitioner has moved SA. No. 401/2018 before the DRT and that the same is pending; but he says that unless the petitioner is able to obtain orders of stay from the said Tribunal, the Bank cannot wait indefinitely without any further action.

(3.) When I consider the submissions made before me by the parties as afore, it is indubitable that unless the Tribunal considers the application for stay of the petitioner and interdicts further action, the Bank would certainly not be incapacitated from pursuing further action in terms of law. However, the fact remains that the application for stay is already pending and is stated to be listed to 26/06/2019. Therefore, the Bank takes any action, pending the said stay petition, then it is certainly up to the petitioner to approach the DRT and seek an expeditious disposal of the same by seeking an advancement of its posting from 26/06/2019. I am certain that if the petitioner does so, the DRT will consider such application as per law and as is warranted under the applicable Statutes and Regulations.