Dismissed

Ms.P.Sukanya, v. State Bank of Patiala

Madras HC19 Jan 2017WP/22358/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Article 226 praying to quash the respondent bank's sale notice as arbitrary and illegal, filed by a legal heir challenging proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, is dismissed as infructuous since the impugned sale notice was not executed and the scheduled sale did not take place.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous due to non-implementation of the sale notice; connected WMPs closed.

Ms.P.Sukanya, Vs State Bank of Patiala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.01.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶6

Writ Petition No.22358 of 2016 and WMP No.19066 & 19067 of 2016 P.Sukanya .... Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

State Bank of Patiala Represented by its Authorised Officer Pudur Pirivu Dharapuram Main Road Tirupur 641 608 .... Respondent

¶9

WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent comprised in their sale notice dated 01.06.2016 in respect of Sl.No.2 published on 09.06.2016 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and consequently forbear the respondent from proceeding under the SARFAESI Act.

¶10

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Ramesh For Respondents :Mr.Suresh

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Sale Notice dated 01.06.2016 in respect of Sl.No.2, published on 09.06.2016 is impugned by the legal heir of the borrower. Record of proceedings shows that on 30.06.3016, while ordering notice of admission returnable in 8 weeks, regarding payment, this court has granted an order of interim stay of the impugned sale notice for a period of 8 weeks.

¶13

Though the writ petitioner made submissions to sustain the challenge on the averments supporting the prayer sought for,

¶14

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

¶15

prima facie, we are of the view that the same has to be done before the forum. Mr.Suresh, learned counsel for the respondent bank submitted that the sale scheduled, did not take place. He has also submitted that, as on today, the writ petition has become infructuous.

¶16

Placing on record the above, writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶17

sd/
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
/true copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
asr
+1cc to Mr.S.Ramesh,ADvocate SR.No.3996
W.P.No.22358 of 2016
KJ(CO)
GN(09/02/2017)

¶18

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

Ms.P.Sukanya, v. State Bank of Patiala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms.P.Sukanya, v. State Bank of Patiala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.D.Lognathan Vs State Bank of Mysore

M/s.Bharat International Vs State Bank of India

Abdul Rahman Vs the Superintending Engineer

Sri Sakthi Transports, Vs M/s. Canara Bank

R.K.Rajkumar, Vs The Registrar

L.Karunakaran, Vs The Chief Metropolitan