2025:KER:26943 OP (DRT) NO. 98 OF 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 OP (DRT) NO. 98 OF 2025 ID NO.280 OF 2025 OF DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,CHENNAI PETITIONER/APPLICANT: SAFREENA V, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O MUHAMMED AKBAR V, VEMMULLI HOUSE, EDAYATTUR, NEAR VEMMULLI JUMA MASJID, MELATTUR, MALAPPURAM., PIN - 679326 BY ADVS. S.MUMTAZ ALISHA ASLAM AMINA RUBY FAIZAL ARPANAI T.A. BHAVANA VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE REGISTRAR, DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SASTHRI BHAVAN, SUBBA ROAD AVENUE, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI., PIN - 600008 2 THE REGISTRAR, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –I KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682036 3 THE FEDERAL BNK LTD.,REP BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, FEDERAL TOWERS, MAVOOR ROAD, ARAYIDATHUPALA, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673016 BY ADVS. Mohan Jacob George P.V.PARVATHY (P-41)(K/000036/1991) REENA THOMAS(R-364) NIGI GEORGE(K/1169/2012) ANANTHU V.LAL(K/001233/2022) SHERIN VARGHESE(K/000628/2010) BRAHMA R.K.(K/003236/2024) THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:26943 OP (DRT) NO. 98 OF 2025 2 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following reliefs:- ‘’i) Direct the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal –I Chennai, to take up and pass order on Ext. P-6 waiver petition and Ext. P-5 stay petition filed in Ext.P-4 as expeditiously as possible; ii) Issue an order restraining the 3 rd Respondent from proceeding further on the basis of Ext. P-7 notice till the disposal of Ext. P-6 and P-7 stay petition by the Appellate Tribunal.’’ 2. Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing OP(DRT) No.25 of 2025, seeking stay of taking of possession of the residential house of the petitioner on the ground that a stay petition filed in S.A. No.2 of 2024 filed by the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal has been heard and reserved for orders. I had considered the contentions raised by the petitioner and the contentions raised by the respondent bank in OP(DRT) No.25 of 2025 and had dismissed the Original Petition (for reasons stated therein) holding that the petitioner has not shown any bona fides entitling her to any interim relief pending consideration of the stay petition by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the judgment in OP (DRT) No.25 of 2025:KER:26943 OP (DRT) NO. 98 OF 2025 3 2025 reads thus:- ‘’3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that the liabilities are in excess of Rs.9 Crores presently. It is submitted that, the husband of the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.41577 of 2023 and had obtained an interim order staying further proceedings on condition that he remits a sum of Rs.3 Crores (in total) by 31.01.2024. It is submitted that on finding that the initial amount of Rs.1 Crore directed to be paid by 31.12.2023 had not been paid, this Court on 18.01.2024, dismissed the writ petition. It is submitted that, thereafter, the Debts Recovery Tribunal was approached by filing a Securitization Application as S.A. No.2 of 2024. It is submitted that, though the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.41577 of 2023 was on 18.01.2024 and despite the passage of more than one year, after the dismissal of that writ petition, neither the petitioner nor her husband have cared to pay even Rs.1 towards the loan liability and therefore, the bona fides of the petitioner is clearly doubtful. It is submitted that, the properties, which have been taken possession of, fetch little or no value and may not be sufficient to cover the liabilities of the bank and therefore, the bank may be permitted to proceed with the taking over of possession of the secured asset. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, I am of the view that the the petitioner has not shown bona fides entitling her to the reliefs sought for in the original petition. The liabilities are substantial. Despite the fact that the husband of the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 41577 of 2023, seeking the relief of repayment of the liability in instalments, the husband of the petitioner did not pay any amount to comply with the terms of the interim order which was granted to him, leading to the dismissal of W.P.(C) No.41577 of 2023 (by Exhibit P2 judgment) on 18.01.2024. Even after the passage of more than one year after the dismissal of W.P.(C) No.41577 of 2023, neither the petitioner nor her husband have taken any steps to pay any amount to settle the loan liability. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank is right in submitting that in the absence of bona fides, the petitioner is not 2025:KER:26943 OP (DRT) NO. 98 OF 2025 4 entitled to any protection from this Court.’’ 3. The stay petition filed by the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal was dismissed by Exhibit P3 order dated 05.02.2025 . 4. This Original Petition has been filed stating that the petitioner had approached the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal by filing Exhibit P4 appeal [along with application for waiver of pre-deposit] and seeking stay of taking of physical possession of the secured asset till the matter is considered by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. 5. Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act requires a person seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to remit a sum equivalent to 50% of the amount demanded for maintaining an appeal. As noted in the judgment in OP (DRT) No.25 of 2025, the liabilities for which the proceedings have been initiated are in excess of Rs.9 Crores. The provisions of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act indicate that on application by the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal may, for reasons to be stated, reduce the amount of pre-deposit to 25%. 6. When this OP(DRT) came up for consideration on an earlier occasion, I orally observed that the relief sought for in 2025:KER:26943 OP (DRT) NO. 98 OF 2025 5 the Original Petition can be considered only if the petitioner were to deposit 25% of the amount demanded as otherwise no appeal is maintainable at the instance of the petitioner against Exhibit P3 order before the Appellate Tribunal. At the request of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner , the matter was thus adjourned to be listed today. 7. Even today when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not in a position to state that an amount equivalent to 25% of the amount demanded can be deposited. Taking the aforesaid facts into consideration, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this Original Petition. I am clear in mind that the filing of this Original Petition amounts to an abuse of process of Court. Original Petition will, therefore, stand dismissed. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE ajt 2025:KER:26943 OP (DRT) NO. 98 OF 2025 6 APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 98/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF SECURITISATION APPLICATION BEARING SA NO. 2/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –I, ERNAKULAM Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION BEARING IA NO. 4770/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN SA 2/2024 BEFORE THE HON’BLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, ERNAKULAM Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 05/02/2025 IN EXT. P-2 (IA 4770/2024) INS SA 2/2024 PASSED BY HON’BLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, ERNAKULAM Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR APPEAL BEARING DIARY NO. 280/2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON’BLE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON’BLE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WAIVER PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON’BLE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER NOTICE DATED 10/03/2025