The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers:
“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to stay the proceedings in Debt Recovery Tribunal in O.A. No. 266 of 2002 and connected cases till the judgment in C.C. No. 138/2010 is pronounced by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam which is posted for hearing on 19.6.2014 along with discharge petition Crl.M.P. No. 1959/2009.
ii. Declare that the list of document in Ext.P9 is a fabricated documents without any original documents No. 1 to 6 with the help of the defacto complainant who as a man in charge for a temporary period.”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the O.A. No. 266 of 2002 has been filed by the respondent Bank on the strength of some fabricated documents. But the petitioners have been proceeded against by way of C.C. No. 138 of 2010, on the basis of the allegation that the originals of the concerned documents have been stolen by the petitioners. It is stated that proceedings are pending before the Chief Judicial W.P.C. No. 13916 of 2014 -2-
Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam and that the matter stands listed for hearing. If the proceedings are finalized against the petitioners, it will adversely affect the petitioners in the case pending before the DRT and hence the writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. It is stated that the 2nd petitioner had approached this Court earlier, as partner of M/s Marine Remedies Unit Pesticide Corporation (India), by filing W.P.(C). No. 23324 of 2010, challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act. The said writ petition was dismissed without expressing anything with regard to the rights and liberties of the parties concerned. Being aggrieved of the said verdict, the petitioner had approached the Division Bench of this Court by way of W.A. No. 1775 of 2010, which was disposed of, granting one week's time to approach the DRT under the relevant provisions of law. The learned counsel also brought it to the notice of this Court that, the petitioner had again filed W.P.(C). No. 38016 of 2010 with similar allegations, which was dismissed W.P.C. No. 13916 of 2014 -3-
as withdrawn. Later, there was another attempt by the petitioner, by filing W.P.(C). No. 29292 of 2013, which was also dismissed as withdrawn.
After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that this is not a fit case to call for interference. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-