Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 954 (KER)

Santhosh Philip v. South Indian Bank

2018-11-26

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

body2018
JUDGMENT: The prayer of the petitioner in this O.P is in a very limited compass. According to him, against certain steps taken by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity), he has already preferred S.A.No.253/2016 (re-numbered as T.S.A.No.1114/16, consequent to its transfer to DRT-2) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam (DRT for short) and that the same has now been reserved for orders. He further says that the S.A is now posted for orders to 03.01.2019 but he apprehends that the respondent Bank will take coercive steps under the SARFAESI Act in the meanwhile. 2. He, therefore, prays that the Bank be directed not to continue with any such action pending delivery of the order by the DRT on 03.01.2019. 3. Sri. K.K. John, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the South Indian Bank submits that the attempt of the petitioner is clearly to delay the proceedings initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act and he says that the DRT had earlier vacated an interim order of stay granted by it to the petitioner, because the petitioner did not comply with the conditions imposed and that he had also earlier approached this Court by two writ petitions, which were both either disposed of or withdrawn. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the Bank is therefore, at liberty to proceed under the SARFAESI Act because the order of stay granted by the DRT now stands expressly withdrawn. 4. Even though I hear the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank as afore, and even though I find substantial force in his submissions that the Bank is at liberty to proceed with the steps under the SARFAESI Act, specifically on account of the fact that the DRT had withdrawn the earlier order of stay; in this particular case, there is one event that is of prime importance which will dis-entitle the Bank from doing so at this point of time. This is that the DRT has heard the S.A on its merits and reserved the order on 30.07.2018 so as to deliver the order on 03.01.2019. This is that the DRT has heard the S.A on its merits and reserved the order on 30.07.2018 so as to deliver the order on 03.01.2019. It is now well-settled in law that the status quo with respect to the cause of action as well as the subject matter of litigation will have to be maintained with reference to the date on which orders are reserved by a Court and that the parties are not entitled to change the status quo pending the delivery of the order after it is reserved. 5. In the case at hand, it is conceded before me that the DRT, Ernakulam has reserved orders on 30.07.2018 for being delivered on 03.01.2019. Therefore, the Bank will not be entitled to take any further action after 30.07.2018, on which date the DRT has reserved it for orders, until the order is delivered on 03.01.2019. This is the manner in which the sanctity of the processes of law will have to be maintained and judicial discipline also demands that the parties should not get emboldened to change the status pending an order to be issued by the Court, especially after it is reserved. In the afore circumstances, I direct the respondent Bank to maintain the status quo with respect to the steps taken by it under the SARFAESI Act until 03.01.2019 and they will have liberty to continue further, subject to the orders to be issued by the DRT, immediately thereafter. This writ petition is thus ordered.