S. Ravi Kumar, Chairperson
1. This Appeal is preferred against Order dated 17.01.2023 in IA 2956/2022 in SA 581/2022 of DRT-I, Ernakulam.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for Appellants submitted that Appellants are neither Borrowers nor Guarantors for the loan granted by 1st Respondent, South Indian Bank Ltd., and 1st Appellant is a partner of 2nd Appellant, M/s. Pioneer Auto Engineering Works, but Tribunal below recorded in para 4 of its Order that 2nd Appellant Firm availed loan, which is factually incorrect. He submitted thinking that 2nd Appellant Firm is a Borrower, Tribunal below dismissed the Interlocutory Application, and now, 1st Respondent Bank is taking steps to take possession of disputed property which is in possession and enjoyment of 2nd Appellant Firm wherein there are several workers. It is further submitted to protect the interest of 2nd Appellant Firm, an Interim Order may be granted.
4. On the other hand, Advocate for 1st Respondent Bank opposed and submitted that, property is individual property of 2nd Respondent, and Tribunal below rightly dismissed the Application.
5. Admittedly, main Securitisation Application is still pending, and these findings are recorded at Interlocutory stage, and ultimately, the contentions and rival contentions with regard to the nature of property, ownership of property and mortgage created, in favour of Bank have to be decided in the main Securitisation Application, and any observation at Interlocutory stage would no way affect the final disposal of Securitisation Application.
6. When it is put to both sides whether they are ready to proceed with main Securitisation Application, in which, rights of both parties can be determined, within a time frame; both of them represented that they are willing to proceed with the main Securitisation Application. But, Advocate for Appellants made a request that till the disposal of main Securitisation Application, possession of 2nd Appellant Firm has to be protected. When it is put to Advocate for Appellants whether they are ready to file an undertaking Affidavit not to interfere with or obstruct the process after the disposal of main Securitisation Application, if it went against them, it is represented that party is not willing.
7. Considering the submissions of both sides, without going into merits and demerits of the case, it is ordered that, Tribunal below shall decide SA 581/2022, by giving opportunity to both parties, on merits, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, without being influenced by any of observations made in this Appeal or any of findings recorded in impugned Order dated 17.01.2023. It is further clarified that both parties shall co-operate with Tribunal below in disposal of SA 581/2022, in giving effect to the above directions. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Both parties shall bear their own costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.
