The petitioners, who are the Authorized Officer and the Bank itself, are aggrieved by Exhibit P5 order passed in an Interlocutory Application in a Securitization Application.
2. The 1st respondent despite being served with notice, has not cared to appear before this Court.
3. The 1st respondent was an employee of the Bank, who is said to have been removed from the service. The 1st respondent, while he was in service, availed of a loan and was entitled to a concessional rate of interest. Even subsequent to the removal from service, the 1st respondent did not satisfy the loan account and default having been committed, the petitioner-Bank was constrained to take proceedings against him. When securitization proceedings were initiated, the 1st respondent, first, approached this Court with a writ petition, which concluded in Exhibit P2 judgment.
4. In fact the learned Single Judge, who disposed of the writ petition, specifically recorded in the judgment, that, the petitioner does not dispute the liability to pay or the quantum. The 1st respondent having only sought for instalments, the learned Single Judge took a lenient view and directed payment of the amounts in ten equal monthly instalments starting from 01.10.2011. Though three instalments as directed, were paid, subsequently default was committed. It is also evident from the records that a delayed payment made as per the judgment was kept in a sundry account by the petitioner-Bank, which later was appropriated towards the loan account.
5. On consistent default in the instalment as directed by this Court, the Bank revived the SARFAESI proceedings initiated, upon which the 1st respondent approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) [Kerala and Lakshadweep] at Ernakulam, with a Securitization Application, in which the DRT passed Exhibit P5 interim order directing payment of the balance amounts in instalments of Rs.10,000/- every month.
6. There is absolutely no doubt that the DRT exceeded its limits and by Exhibit P5, committed an overreach of the instalments already granted by this Court. The DRT noticed the submission of the 1st respondent herein, which disclosed the entire facts stated herein above. The filing of the writ petition and the order therein was also brought to the notice of the DRT. The 1st respondent though raised a contention that the sale notice issued under the Act was prima facie illegal, void and unsustainable in law, no arguments were addressed on that count. Plea for sympathy was advanced on the ground that he is out of employment and the default was only due to financial crisis faced by him. The Tribunal noticed that there was non-compliance of the demand under Section 13(2) of the Act and that the 1st respondent was a chronic defaulter. The judgment of this Court , produced herein as Exhibit P3, was also noticed. However, taking into consideration only the submission of the 1st respondent for time, the Tribunal proceeded to grant the instalments as aforesaid, allegedly on a consideration of “the balance of convenience,grounds of equity and fair play and to secure the ends of justice”.
7. The Tribunal, constituted under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, cannot go behind the confines of the specific jurisdiction conferred and though a grant of instalment facility would be well within the powers of the Tribunal, the present order definitely is an overreach of this Court's judgment. If the 1st respondent wanted further time, the 1st respondent ought to have approached this Court and not the Tribunal. The 1st respondent having approached the DRT, after noticing the order of this Court the Tribunal necessarily should have declined interference with the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. In such circumstance, Exhibit P5 order is set aside. The respondent-Bank would be free to proceed with the recovery initiated against the 1st respondent.
Writ petition allowed. No costs.
vku.
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran, Judge ( true copy )