Petitioner challenged Collector's possession order under SARFAESI Act. Court declined extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, noting the borrower should instead approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17.
Writ petition dismissed. Liberty reserved to approach appropriate statutory forum under provisions of law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.07.2015
C O R A M
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
W.P. No.12106 of 2013 and M.P. No.1 of 2013
P.V.Rajan ... Petitioner
Vs
1.Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited,
represented by its Authorised Officer,
CMDA Tower II, 5 th Floor,
Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore,
Chennai-600 008.
2.Pondicherry Housing Board,
represented by its Secretary,
Anna Nagar,
Puducherry.
3.The District Collector-cum-District Magistrate,
Puducherry.
4.Kiliyanur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank,
Kiliyanur-604 102,
Vanur Taluk.
(R-4 impleded vide order dated 23.9.2013
in M.P.No.2 of 2013) ... Respondents
This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for
the records on the file of the third respondent, dated 10.04.2013
bearing Ref.No.9036/DRDM/C.3/SARFAESI/2011 and of the first
respondent dated 8.10.2010 bearing Ref.No.HUDCO/CHRO/RFU/HL-
000330/2010-469 and quash the same.
For petitioner : Mr.D.Bharathachakravarthy for M/s.Sai Bharath and Ilan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Mohan for R-1 Mr.T.P.Manoharan for R-2 Mrs.N.Mala, AGP(Puducherry) for R-3 Mr.R.Dhanasekar for R-4
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI,J.)
Indisputably, the petitioner is the borrower of the loan from the first respondent. The first respondent, following due process as required under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI Act”), issued demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and thereafter possession notice under Section 13(4) ibid read with Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Consequent thereupon, the first respondent approached the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Puducherrry under the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, for taking over possession of the secured asset, i.e., the property in question.
and others1 , Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others2 , and Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and others3 ].
“14.The ratio deducible from the case of
Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra) is that no remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is available to the lessee / tenant, who is in lawful possession, to the Debts Recovery Tribunal against the decision of the CMM or the District Magistrate for the reason that the Tribunal is not competent and has no power to restore the possession of the said property to any other person, including lessees, except borrower. However, an appeal at the instance of the borrower or guarantor against the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by the CMM or District Magistrate is maintainable under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act x x x x x.”
-Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar To
+1cc to Mr. T.P. Manoharam, Advocate (36751) +1cc to Mr.S.Pandurangan, Advocate (36760)
svi(CO) cp 03.08.15 W.P. No.12106 of 2013
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is inclined to entertain the writ petition questioning the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable against the order passed by the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati TandonReferred¶16
United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others
Kanaiyalal L. Sachdev and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and OthersReferred¶16
Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
Harshad G. Sondagar vs. International Assets Reconstruction Company LimitedReferred¶16
Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and others
Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited vs. Canara BankDistinguished¶19
Deccan Chronical Holdings Limited Vs. Canara Bank
4 provisions across 2 enactments
P.V.Rajan
Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited
Pondicherry Housing Board
District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Puducherry
Kiliyanur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI
M. VENUGOPAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
