Disposed

P.K.Jayaraman v. The Chief Manager cum

Madras HC28 Aug 2015WP/26990/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a Writ Petition challenging a bank's auction notice was not maintainable. The Court granted liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal and directed same to dispose of the case expeditiously before the auction confirmation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to move Debts Recovery Tribunal; auction confirmation stayed till 9 Sept 2015; DRT to dispose matter by 7 Sept 2015.

P.K.Jayaraman Vs The Chief Manager cum — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated :: 28.8.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶7

W.P. No.26990 of 2015

¶8

P.K.Jayaraman ... petitioner
versus
1 The Chief Manager cum
Authorised Officer Bank of Maharastra No.4
Sivagnanam Road T.Nagar Chennai-17
2 The Chief Manager
Bank of Maharastra Coimbatore Branch
Rangai Gownder Street Coimbatore 641 018
3 K.M.Manoharan
4. J.Srinivasan ... respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari call for the records relevant to the order in tender cum e-auction sale notice dated 24.7.2015 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal improper arbitrary and against the natural justice and rule of law.

¶10

For petitioner : Mr.B.Sundara Pandian

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

(made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.)

¶13

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the auction notice dated 24 July 2015 whereby and whereunder, the Authorized Officer, Bank of Maharashtra, proposed to auction the secured asset on 1 September 2015.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

According to the petitioner, his son, the 4^th respondent herein, stood as Guarantor, for sanctioning loan to the 3^rd respondent. The subject property was given as guarantee, after executing a fraudulent deed of partition. It was only when the

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

officials of the Bank inspected the property, after issuing sale notice, the petitioner came to know the execution of mortgage deed and the initiation of proceedings under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. The petitioner is therefore before this Court.

¶18

The petitioner is having a statutory remedy by approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal. There is no question of entertaining a Writ Petition in a matter of this nature. We are therefore of the view that the petitioner must avail the statutory remedy.

¶19

The petitioner is given liberty to move the Debts Recovery Tribunal for appropriate relief on or before 3 September 2015. It is open to the first respondent to proceed with the auction, as scheduled. However, confirmation of sale shall not be made till 9 September 2015.

¶20

The Debts Recovery Tribunal is directed to entertain the
application filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on
merits as expeditiously as possible and in any case on or before 7
September 2015.
7. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No
costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2015 are closed.
tar
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1 The Chief Manager cum
Authorised Officer Bank of Maharastra No.4
Sivagnanam Road T.Nagar Chennai-17
2 The Chief Manager
Bank of Maharastra Coimbatore Branch
Rangai Gownder Street Coimbatore 641 018
tej(co)
prk1/9
W.P. No.26990 of 2015

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.K.Jayaraman v. The Chief Manager cum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Jayaraman v. The Chief Manager cum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arasakumaran Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Central Bank of India Vs M.Ezhilmaran

The Tamilnadu Government Vs Secretary

P.Sidhuraji Vs The Revenue Divisional

P.Rajan, Vs Chennai Metropolitan

K.Vasumathi, 8.A, 13th Street Vs The Secretary to Government