2025:KER:29872 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 OP (DRT) NO. 80 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2024 IN SA NO.813 OF 2024 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/APPLICANT: FAISAL KANNOLI, AGED 60 YEARS S/O. POOKKAR HAJI, KANNOLI HOUSE, KALPETTA POST, WAYANAD, PIN - 673121 BY ADVS. R.SUDHISH M.MANJU RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ICICI BANK LIMITED, 2ND FLOOR, AARPEES ARCADE, YMCA CROSS ROAD, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, PIN - 673001 BY ADVS. LAL K JOSEPH P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR)(K/1651/2000) T.A.LUXY(K/000701/1997) SURESH SUKUMAR(K/634/1997) ANZIL SALIM(K/000447/2018) SANJAY SELLEN(K/885/2021) AKASH GEORGE(K/899/2022) THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:29872 O.P.(DRT)No.80/2025 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam (Tribunal) dated 06.11.2024 in I.A.No.4045 of 2024 in S.A.No.813 of 2024 through which the Tribunal had directed that the proceedings initiated by the respondent bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act shall remain suspended on condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.1 Crore on or before 05.12.2024 and further a sum of Rs.1 Crore on or before 04.01.2025. The Tribunal directed the payment of a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- as a condition for stay taking into account the fact that the affidavit filed by the bank before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act stated that the outstanding amount as on 20.04.2024 was Rs.5,17,74,807/-. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the condition imposed in the interim order dated 06.11.2024 cannot be stated to be a fair condition as the Tribunal had directed the payment of total sum of Rs.2 Crores in two instalments payable on 2025:KER:29872 O.P.(DRT)No.80/2025 3 or before 05.12.2024 and 04.01.2025. It is submitted that the time for payment was very short. It is submitted that the petitioner had also approached the Bank for One Time Settlement and the same has not been considered by the Bank. It is submitted that the properties are situated in Wayanad and on account of the recent landslides, the petitioner has been unable to find a buyer to sell the properties and settle the liability of the Bank. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act may be suspended and the petitioner may be given at least two months time to sell the property and settle the entire liability of the Bank. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that no ground has been made out for interference with the impugned order in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that considering the total liabilities, the condition imposed by the Tribunal was justified. It is submitted that even though the order required the payment of a total sum of Rs.2 Crores in two instalments payable on 2025:KER:29872 O.P.(DRT)No.80/2025 4 05.12.2024 and 04.01.2025 even after the passage of more than four months after the date of the order, the petitioner has not remitted any amount to the respondent Bank. It is submitted that there is no One Time Settlement scheme in force and the Bank is not willing to consider any application for One Time Settlement. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the bona fides of the petitioner itself is in doubt and the Bank may be permitted to continue with the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference with the impugned order in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal had imposed a condition for deposit of Rs.2 crores payable in two instalments on 05.12.2024 and 04.01.2025 taking into consideration the fact that in the month of April, 2024, the outstanding was in excess of Rs.5.17 Crores. The condition imposed 2025:KER:29872 O.P.(DRT)No.80/2025 5 by the Tribunal cannot be stated to be unreasonable as is now contended by the petitioner before this Court. Notwithstanding the above, even after the passage of five months after the passing of impugned order on 06.11.2024, the petitioner has not paid any amount to the respondent Bank. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the bona fides of the petitioner are suspect, can only be accepted by this Court. The original petition therefore fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE Scl/ 2025:KER:29872 O.P.(DRT)No.80/2025 6 APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 80/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS SHOWING THAT THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER WAS UNDERGOING TREATMENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SECURITISATION APPLICATION IN S.A. NO. 813 OF 2024 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) DATED 4.11.2024 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – 1, ERNAKULAM DATED 6.11.2024 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION DATED 22.1.2025 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASSET MANAGER, ICICI BANK LIMITED DATED 6.4.2025