SOUTH INDIAN BANK Vs. ABRAHAM KURIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri.K.K.Chandran Pillai, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/the South Indian Bank. The respondent/writ petitioners are represented by Sri.G.G.Manoj, the learned counsel.

(2.) On the failure of the borrowers to repay the loan dues, the bank initiated recovery proceeding under the SARFAESI Act. Against the steps taken by the bank, the borrowers preferred the Secularization Application i.e. S.A.No.56 of 2019 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). No interim order was however passed by the DRT. The S.A.No.56 of 2019 itself was taken up for consideration and after completion of hearing, judgment was reserved by the DRT. In the meanwhile, taking note of the absence of an interim order, the bank proceeded further by invoking the provisions of Section 14, of the SARFAESI Act.

(3.) The above action was assailed in the Writ Petition No.11192 of 2019. The learned Judge noted that the judgment in the S.A.56 of 2019 is reserved by the DRT and opined that the bank should not take recovery steps under Section 14, till such time the adjudication of the S.A. is pending before the DRT.