AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S Dias, J
The review petition is filed to review the judgment passed in the above original petition[O.P.(DRT No.213/2023].
The review petitioners’ case is that, they had filed the original petition, seeking a direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1(in short, ‘Tribunal’), Ernakulam, to consider and dispose of S.A.No.27/2023, expeditiously.
When the original petition came up for admission on 19.05.2023, this Court had passed an interim order staying the recovery proceedings. During the pendency of the original petition, the petitioner remitted an amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. However, at the time of disposal of the original petition, this Court only directed the Tribunal to consider and dispose of S.A.No.27/2023 within two months. Due to an inadvertent mistake, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had failed to seek for extension of the interim order. Hence, there is an error apparent on the face of the judgment. Hence, the review petition.
Heard; Sri.S.Sunil Kumar (Palakkad), the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Pradeesh Chacko, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2. Notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.
Indisputably, the prayer in the original petition was only to direct the Tribunal to consider and dispose of S.A.No.27/2023. This Court, after calling for a report from the Tribunal, directed the Tribunal to consider and dispose of S.A.No.27/2023 within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. This Court has not passed any order staying the recovery proceedings, because first of all, there was no prayer in the original petition. Secondly, it is for the petitioners to work out their remedies as contemplated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002, in the pending Securitization Application. Thus, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment, warranting the exercise of the review jurisdiction of this Court.
Resultantly, the review is devoid of any merits and is hence, dismissed.