The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers:
“a) An order or direction, directing the Debt Recovery Tribunal to consider and pass orders in I.A.Nos.2359 and 2358/2014 in S.A. 306/2014 on its file as expeditiously as possible
b) An order or direction, directing that the status-quo with regard to the auctioned property shall be maintained as on 4/9/2014 till the Debts Recovery Tribunal passes such orders.
c) Grant such other reliefs as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and the circumstances of the case.”
2. When the matter came up for consideration on 20.10.2014, the following interim order was passed:
“The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier offered cheque for Rs.15 lakhs, which was not accepted and hence the petitioner is handing over two demand drafts for a total sum of Rs.15 lakhs. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the property concerned has already been sold and as such the respondent Bank is not in a position to accept the demand drafts for the time being .
Issue urgent notice on admission to the 4th respondent through Special Messenger.
The respondents are directed to file counter affidavit, also producing copies of the relevant documents in the meanwhile.”
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner , the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank and also the learned Counsel for the bidder, who turned out to be the successful in the sale conducted on 04.09.2014.
4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 as to the sequence of events.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the attempt made by the petitioner is not at all a bonafide one and that steps are being pursued only to protract things somehow or other. It is further pointed out that, even though the DRT, Ernakulam granted an interim stay, subsequently, on finding that the petitioner did not satisfy the condition on time, the stay was vacated. Thereafter I.A. 2359 of 2014 in S.A. 306/2014 was filed and the petitioner rushed to this Court seeking for further indulgence, which is not liable to be entertained, submits the learned Standing Counsel.
6. The learned Counsel for the bidder submits that, because of the pendency of the matter before this Court, the Bank is not taking any earnest effort to confirm the sale, as a result of which, much loss and hardships are being caused to the bidder as well.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the only relief pressed before this Court is for issuance of a direction to cause the I.A. to be considered and finalised within a reasonable time.
8. After hearing both the sides, the Original Petition is disposed of directing the DRT, Ernakulam to consider and pass appropriate orders in the aforesaid I.A. at the earliest , at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the Original Petition before the DRT, Ernakulam for further steps.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk