Facts of the Case

The petitioners approached the High Court of Kerala by filing OP (DRT) No. 403 of 2022 in connection with proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam.

The record shows that the petitioners had filed a Securitisation Application bearing I.D. No. 13597 of 2022 before Debts Recovery Tribunal-I. The exhibits forming part of the Original Petition included, inter alia:

  • a deed of partnership dated 28 November 2018;
  • the GST registration certificate of the petitioners’ hypermarket dated 1 February 2019;
  • a licence issued to Ganesh Hypermarket dated 9 April 2021;
  • Lease Deed No. 5194/I/2021 executed between the petitioners and the second respondent dated 26 November 2021;
  • an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad in M.C. No. 12 of 2022 dated 30 July 2022;
  • a notice of the Advocate Commissioner dated 20 August 2022;
  • the Securitisation Application bearing I.D. No. 13597 of 2022 filed before Debts Recovery Tribunal-I dated 10 October 2022; and
  • the stay petition bearing I.A. I.D. No. 13600 of 2022 in the said Securitisation Application.

When the Original Petition came up for consideration before the High Court on 19 October 2022, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the Original Petition.

Issues Involved

The principal procedural issues arising from the order were:

  1. Whether the petitioners should be permitted to withdraw OP (DRT) No. 403 of 2022.
  2. Whether the petitioners’ contentions should remain open despite withdrawal of the Original Petition.
  3. Whether any direction was required to ensure timely consideration of the pending Securitisation Application before Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The brief judgment does not record detailed submissions on the substantive merits of the securitisation dispute.

At the stage when the Original Petition was taken up for consideration, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners specifically sought permission to withdraw the Original Petition.

Accordingly, no further detailed substantive arguments of the petitioners are recorded in the judgment. The order must therefore be understood strictly on the basis of the withdrawal request and the consequential direction issued by the High Court.

Respondents’ Arguments

The judgment does not record any detailed arguments or substantive submissions advanced on behalf of South Indian Bank Limited or the second respondent.

Accordingly, no independent contention should be attributed to the respondents beyond the contents expressly appearing in the judicial order.

Court Order / Findings

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the matter with the following directions and findings:

  1. The petitioners were permitted to withdraw the Original Petition.
  2. OP (DRT) No. 403 of 2022 was dismissed as withdrawn.
  3. All contentions of the petitioners were expressly left open.
  4. The Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam was directed to ensure that the Securitisation Application filed by the petitioners was listed for consideration before the Tribunal without undue delay.

Thus, while the High Court did not adjudicate the substantive merits of the securitisation dispute, it protected the petitioners’ contentions from being foreclosed merely because the Original Petition was withdrawn and simultaneously ensured prompt listing of the pending Securitisation Application before the competent Tribunal.

Important Clarification

A significant clarification emerging from this order is that dismissal of the Original Petition as withdrawn did not amount to adjudication of the petitioners’ substantive contentions on merits.

The High Court specifically left all contentions of the petitioners open. Therefore, the order should not be interpreted as:

  • affirming the substantive case of the petitioners;
  • rejecting the substantive case of the petitioners;
  • deciding the legality or validity of the underlying recovery or securitisation measures;
  • deciding the merits of Securitisation Application I.D. No. 13597 of 2022; or
  • recording a final determination on the rival rights and liabilities of the parties.

The operative significance of the judgment lies in the procedural disposal of the Original Petition as withdrawn, preservation of the petitioners’ contentions, and the direction for listing of the Securitisation Application without undue delay.

Section Involved

Specific Section: The judgment itself does not expressly mention a particular statutory section.

Proceedings Involved: Securitisation Application I.D. No. 13597 of 2022 pending before Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam.

Important Publishing Note: Since the short judgment does not expressly identify a statutory provision, inserting a specific section as though expressly decided by the High Court may alter the legal meaning of the order. The case note therefore retains the exact legal position reflected in the judgment

 

Link to Download the Order-https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783407420_1406compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.