The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in Securitization Application No.670 of 2013. The main contention raised is on the procedure which the Tribunal resorted to in passing such orders. S.A itself was filed on 07.10.013 ad it was posted to 17.10.2013 for the written statement in the S.A and counter affidavit in the Interlocutory Application. Written statement was filed on 17.10.2013 and it is stated that a hearing was carried on 22.10.2013.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner himself was clearly under the impression that the I.A was being heard. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank who also appeared before the Tribunal, however, contends that in fact, the Tribunal had proceeded with the Securitization Application itself. In any event, the orders were reserved and on 20.01.2014, the final order in the S.A itself was pronounced as is evidenced by Ext.P7. The same is said to have been issued again only on 19.02.2014. The petitioner obviously has not approached the Appellate Tribunal since he was aggrieved with the procedure adopted insofar as disposing of the Securitization Application itself, when actually the interim application was up for consideration before the Tribunal.
3. I have heard both parties elaborately. It is to be noticed that on an earlier occasion, when a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was issued, petitioner was before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by Ext.P5 order, set aside the same on account of irregularity in complying with the statutory provisions. Again, a notice was issued under Section 13(4) by Ext.P6 which was challenged before the Tribunal and which concluded in Ext.P7. In the nature of the orders to be passed in the above Original Petition, it may not be proper for this Court to examine the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner; answered by the Tribunal in Ext.P7.
4. Evidently the application filed on 07.10.2013 was taken up on 22.10.2013 and the matter itself disposed of. In such circumstances, though the Tribunal would have taken up the matter for final disposal itself, this Court cannot brush aside the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was under the impression that only the I.A was being argued. What weighs more with this Court is that an S.A filed on 07.10.2013 was taken up for final hearing on 22.10.2013, when written statement itself was filed on 22.10.2013. Hence, for that short reason, Ext.P7 is set aside. Securitization Application shall be restored to the files of the Tribunal. One another factor to be noticed is that a notice issued under Ext.P8 was also challenged in subsequent proceedings in which both sides admitted that an order of stay has been passed by the Tribunal. In such circumstances, only for the purpose of reconsideration of the Securitization Application, Ext.P7 is set aside and the same shall be taken along with the Securitization Application 670/2013 filed by the petitioner against Ext.P8, and considered within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Original Petition allowed.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge Mrcs //True Copy//