VEENA PRABHAKUMAR Vs. DHANLAXMI BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as the DRT for brevity), has apparently taken a view, in the order impugned in this Original Petition, that a pending Securitisation Application (SA), filed under the provisions of section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act (SARFAESI Act for convenience), cannot be amended by the applicant to incorporate a challenge against subsequent action/steps taken by a Bank or Financial Institution under the said Act, either because the earlier measures, assailed in the SA, had matured into the next stage pending lis or if it had not borne fruit, as was expected by them.

(2.) The DRT, Relying on the judgment of another learned Judge of this Court in Sidheek A.V vs. Authorised Officer, Federal Bank, M.G.Road Branch, (2017) 5 KHC 373, appears to have concluded that every subsequent measure/action taken by the Bank/Financial Institution gives rise to a new cause of action, amenable to an independent challenge through a fresh Securitisation Application; and axiomatically, therefore, that an amendment to the pending SA, to bring on record pleadings and reliefs consequent to such measure/action becomes unnecessary and impermissible.

(3.) The petitioners in this O.P calls into question the afore rationale of the DRT, as being erroneous and thus unsustainable in law.