Disposed

M/s.Manam Agro Concentrate v. The Authorized Officer

Madras HC27 Apr 2016WP/14519/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a Section 13(2) notice under the SARFAESI Act. It held that no interim interference was warranted at that stage, as the borrower had the statutory right to submit a representation under Section 13(3-A) before the bank proceeds further.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to submit a representation under Section 13(3-A) within two weeks; writ petition disposed of.

M/s.Manam Agro Concentrate Vs The Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 27.04.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P. No.14519 of 2016 and W.M.P. No.12678 of 2016

¶6

1 M/s. Manam Agro Concentrate represented by its Proprietor Gunawathee Mohan Wife of R.P. Mohan, Thandarai Village Bennagur Post, Hosur Denkanikotta Taluk Krishnagiri District 635 107

¶7

2 R.P. Mohan Petitioners
vs.

¶8

The Authorised Officer Yes Bank Ground Floor, Prestige Obelisk Municipal No.3, Kasturba Road, Bangalore 560 001 Respondent

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the respondent bank bearing reference number nil issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, dated 26.02.2016 and quash the same as illegal, irregular and without jurisdiction and to further direct the respondent bank to abide by the guidelines laid out in G.O. Ms.No.436 issued by Revenue (D.M.II) Department dated 20.12.2015.

¶10

Notice to the respondent is dispensed with at this stage, inasmuch as no order prejudicial to its interest, is passed in this writ petition. Thus, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶11

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

¶12

2 The first petitioner company is represented by its pROPRIETOR Gunawathee Mohan and the second petitioner is the husband of the said Gunavathee. The first petitioner company availed loan from the respondent bank. However, due to slump in business, the first petitioner company could not repay the loan to the respondent bank. Hence, the respondent bank issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity “the SARFAESI Act”) on 26 February 2016. Challenging the said notice issued under Section 13(2), ibid, and further, seeking a direction to the respondent bank to abide by the guidelines laid down in G.O. Ms.No.436, Revenue (D.M.II) Department dated 20 December 2015, the instant writ petition is filed.

¶13

3 Concededly, even before replying to the impugned demand notice, the petitioner has rushed to this Court by way of the instant writ petition. As per Section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act, on receipt of demand notice under Section 13(2), ibid, the borrower shall make a representation to the secured creditor, putting forth his defence and on receipt of such representation from the borrower, the secured creditor is under an obligation to consider the same before proceeding further.

¶14

4 In the case on hand, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned notice, at this stage, as after issuance of the same under Section 13(2), ibid, there is sufficient provision, whereunder the noticee can make a representation to the respondent bank, pointing out the alleged deficiency in the notice. Accordingly, liberty is reserved to the first petitioner company to submit its representation, if so advised, under Section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act, within a period of two weeks. On the representation being filed within such period, as aforestated, the respondent bank is obligated to consider the same and pass an appropriate order before proceeding under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

¶15

The writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations. Costs made easy. Connected W.M.P. is closed.

¶16

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶17

//True Copy//

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

The Authorised Officer Yes Bank Ground Floor, Prestige Obelisk Municipal No.3, Kasturba Road Bangalore 560 001.

¶23

- 1 cc to Mr.V. Raghavachari, Advocate Sr.26720

¶24

W.P. No.14519 of 2016 GJ-II(CO) EU 30.05.16

¶25

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

M/s.Manam Agro Concentrate v. The Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Manam Agro Concentrate v. The Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Kanakaraj Vs Kannegi Packianathan IAS

Mukesh Kumar Jain, Vs The Corporation of Chennai

M.Utthama Asirvatha Udaiyar, Vs The Commissioner

R.Keerthivarman Vs a.Annammal

The Management Vs The Presiding Officer

V.Kittu Vs The District Collector