Shibu Thomas vs State Bank Of India

T.R. Ravi, J.

This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P6 order issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal I, Ernakulam in I.A.No.474/2022 in O.A.No.407/2015. By Ext.P6 order, the Tribunal has issued directions regarding the sale of the vessel “Great Sea Vembanad” with registration No.4069, IMO No.9680700, MSMI No.1900653 along with its hatch cover, hull tackle, engines, generators, gear box assembly, other machinery, spares, apparel, paraphernalia, furniture and fittings, fixtures, etc. The order is dated 30.01.2023. The petitioner is the 5th respondent in I.A.No.474/2022 in O.A.No.407/2015. The order issued was on an application filed by the 1st respondent herein. The order is challenged on the ground of want of jurisdiction. It is also contended that the sale could not have been ordered without deciding on the priority of charges raised by several persons. Another argument is that the Debt Recovery Tribunal cannot decide on the priority inter se regarding the claims, which is to be decided by the High Court in exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction.

The petitioner claims to be a previous Director of M/s.Great Sea Shipping Pvt. Ltd. According to him, he was wrongly removed from Directorship. He says that the persons who were managing the Company, resigned from the Board of Directors and since there is no person to represent the Company, the Company is not impleaded as a party to this writ petition. The question whether the petitioner was removed from the directorship wrongly, cannot be decided in these proceedings. The petitioner cannot represent the case of the company and the company has to be a party to the proceedings since it is an artificial person. However, I do not propose to delve into that aspect in this writ petition.

The 2nd respondent in the writ petition has filed an Admiralty Suit No.5/2022 before this Court and the said suit is pending. It is based on the order dated 16.08.2022 issued by this Court in exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction that the Debt Recovery Tribunal is proceeding with the sale of the ship. This Court had specifically ordered that the proceedings for sale already initiated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal shall go on. So long as the order of this Court issued in exercise of admiralty jurisdiction stands, the petitioner cannot seek interference with the orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal which are only in furtherance of the directions issued by this Court.

The writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the order dated 16.08.2022 issued by this Court in I.A.No.2/2022 in Admiralty Suit 5/2022 in appropriate proceedings.