Disposed

P.P.K.Paramasivam v. M/s.Shrimagal International

Madras HC27 Jul 2017WP/17517/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions filed by an auction purchaser. The court directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal to conclude pending special applications challenging the auction and possession notices expeditiously, as a status quo order regarding movables hindered the purchaser's possession.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, to dispose of S.A.Nos.43 of 2013 and 130 of 2014 as expeditiously as possible.

P.P.K.Paramasivam Vs M/s.Shrimagal… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.07.2017

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶5

Writ Petition Nos.17517 and 17518 of 2017

¶6

P.P.K.Paramasivam ... Petitioner in both W.Ps
v.
1. M/s.Shrimagal International,
Rep., by its Proprietor,
N.Swaminathan,
SF No.5, Srimagal Garden,
Seventhampalayam,
KNP Colony Post, Tirupur-641 606.
2. N.Swaminathan,
S/o.Nachimuthu Gounder,
No.2, Perichipalayam North,
Ammaniammal Lay-Out,
Dharapuram Road,
Cotton Market-Post, Tirupur 641 606.
3. State Bank of Travancore,
Rep., by its Authorised Officer,
Vijayapuram Branch,
Lakshmi Gardens,
Kangayam Road, Tirupur 641 604.
4. The Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of Travancore,
Regional Office, Region IV,
Chennai Zone, 260 VV Complex,
Avarampalayam Road,
New Sidhapudur, Coimbatore 641 044.
5. The Chairman & Managing Director,
State Bank of Travancore,
Head Office, Trivandrum 695 012.

¶7

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

¶8

The Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. ...

¶9

... Respondents in both WPs

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 6^th Respondent to conclude the proceedings in S.A.Nos.43 of 2013 and 130 of 2014, on its file, finally on merits.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nagasundaram For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.S.Muthukrishnan

¶12

COMMON ORDER

¶13

(Common order of this Court was made by S. MANIKUMAR, J.)

¶14

Auction purchaser, who has been issued with a sale certificate on 21.04.2014 and is in possession of the property, has sought for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, 6 th Respondent herein, to conclude the proceedings in S.A.Nos.43 of 2013 and 130 of 2014, on merits, within the time frame, as may be fixed by this Court.

¶15

2. As both the writ petitions deal with the early disposal of S.A.Nos.43 of 2013 and 130 of 2014, they are disposed of, by a common order.

¶16

3. In the supporting affidavit, the petitioner has averred that respondents 1 and 2 herein, have filed S.A.No.43 of 2013, challenging the possession notice, dated 08.02.2013. In the said S.A., respondents 1 and 2 have impleaded him, as a party respondent. Thereafter, the respondents 1 and 2 have challenged the auction sale notice, issued by the Bank, in respect of immovables, lying in the subject property, purchased by him, in S.A.No.130 of 2014 and that in the said proceedings also, he has been impleaded as one of the respondents.

¶17

4. The auction purchaser has further submitted that he has parted with a sum of Rs.4.23 Crores, as sale consideration and spent around Rs.290 Lakhs for development of the property. He has made mutation of revenue records and discharged all statutory claims over the purchased property. He has further contended that movables in the property, purchased by him, are not removed. Even application filed by the Bank, seeking permission to remove the movables, is pending. It is also his contention that movables occupy considerable space and therefore, he is not able to utilise the property in full.

¶18

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

¶19

5. Added further, Mr.R.Nagasundaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in S.A.No.130 of 2014, filed by respondents 1 and 2, challenging the sale notice, in respect of movables, the Tribunal has granted an order of status-quo. In view of the above pending proceedings, the petitioner-auction purchaser is not able to enjoy the fruits of the property in entirety and therefore, seeks for a direction to the 6 th respondent-Tribunal, to conclude the proceedings in S.A.Nos.43 of 2013 and 130 of 2014, within a time frame.

¶20

6. During the course of hearing, attention of this Court was invited to an order of DRAT, Chennai, to dispose of S.A.No.43 of 2013, as expeditiously as possible.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶22

7. Proceedings have been instituted at the instance of respondents 1 and 2, borrower of the subject property. Property has been purchased in the year 2014, making payment of Rs.4.23 Crores. It is the case of the auction purchaser that he had spent Rs.2.90 Crores, for mutation of revenue records and discharging the statutory claims. It is the further case of the petitioner is that movables lying in the premises, cause inhindrance and therefore, he is not in a position to enjoy the property, in entirety.

¶23

8. Order of status-quo is still in force in I.A.No.888 of 2014 in S.A.No.130 of 2014, filed challenging the auction sale notice, insofar as movables alone is concerned. In S.A.No.43 of 2013, possession notice alone has been challenged.

¶24

9. Mr.R.Nagasundaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that by way of I.A., auction in respect of immovable property, has been questioned. Facts disclose that both the S.As., are pending for quite some time. Though consciously the petitioner has participated in the auction, conducted for the sale of immovable property, where movables are also lying, the fact that the Bank is now restrained from removing the movables by way of an interim order, in respect of the movables, lying in the premises of the auction purchaser, is undisputed. The Bank is restrained to remove the movables and keep it in some place.

¶25

10. In the light of the above, we hereby direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, to dispose of both S.A.Nos.43 of 2013 and 130 of 2014, as expeditiously as possible. Early disposal of the S.As., would also serve the interest of the borrower.

¶26

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

¶27

11. With the above direction, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶28

Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS III )

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

The Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore.

¶33

Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore,

¶34

Vijayapuram Branch, Lakshmi Gardens, Kangayam Road, Tirupur 641 604. 3. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Regional Office, Region IV, Chennai Zone, 260 VV Complex, Avarampalayam Road, New Sidhapudur, Coimbatore 641 044. 4. The Chairman & Managing Director, State Bank of Travancore, Head Office, Trivandrum 695 012. + 1 cc to Mr.R.Nagasundaram, Advocate,SR.54017 + 2 cc to M/s.S.Sethuraman, Advocate,SR.53941,53942 + 1 cc to M/s.S.Muthukrishnan, Advocate in sr.no.53897 Writ Petition Nos.17517 and 17518 of 2017

¶35

SR(CO) NR 31/08/2017

¶36

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

P.P.K.Paramasivam v. M/s.Shrimagal International

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.P.K.Paramasivam v. M/s.Shrimagal International

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

Commissioner of Customs Vs M/S.Manasa Impex Services

M/s.Hypertherm (India) Thermal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Service

A.Panneerselvam, Vs The Authorized Officer

M/s.Asveens Forging Pvt.Ltd., Vs The Registrar

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Lucas Tvs Ltd.

Kovai Periyar District Dravida Vs M/s.v.R.Textiles Pvt. Ltd.