Petitioners challenged bank's possession of mortgaged assets without settling worker dues. Court held relief infructuous as bank had already taken possession, leading to dismissal of the writ petition.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no costs.
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: 5/10/2017
C O R A M
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Writ Petition No.22597 of 2004
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of mandamus forbearing the second respondent from taking possession of the assets of the first respondent for sale without settling all the dues payable to the petitioners by the first respondent to the petitioners herein.
For Petitioner ... Mr.T.Ramkumar
For respondents ... Mr.K.S.V.Prasad for R.2
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J)
When Canara Bank, Chennai/second respondent, desired to take possession of the property, mortgaged by the Management of Coromandel Leathers (P) Ltd., Chennai, the borrower, contending inter alia that workers due have not been paid, employees of the first respondent, joined together and filed the instant writ petition, for a mandamus, forbearing the second respondent, from taking possession of the assets of the first respondent, for sale, without settling all the dues payable to the petitioners by the first respondent.
“Learned counsel for the second respondent seeks two weeks time for filing counter. Adjourned by 13/12/2004.
In the meantime, if the second respondent proceeds to sell the assets, the disbursement or appropriation of the said amount cannot be done without any further orders of this Court.”
“The first respondent has not yet been served. There is a dispute regarding the identity of the workers of the first respondent. A typed-set has been given by the second respondent giving one list and the typed-set of the petitioners gives a different list. We do not know who are the employees of the undertaking against which proceedings have been initiated under the Securitization Act. The counsel for the second respondent bank would submit that the proceedings for sale of assets are going on and have not reached finalisation. Under these circumstances, the second
respondent may proceed with the sale of assets and while appropriating the sale proceeds, shall set apart Rs.10,00,000/-. This shall be kept in deposit. The decision whether the petitioners are entitled to it will depend on the outcome of the writ petition. No application for withdrawal of the above deposit shall be filed without obtaining permission from this Court.
Private notice to the first respondent is permitted, returnable in three weeks. Post it after three weeks.”
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mvs.
W.P.No.22597 of 2004 Rmp(07/11/17)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking injunction on bank possession of assets remains subsquent to the bank's actual takeover.
R. Aravindhan and others
Management of Coromandel Leathers (P) Limited
Canara Bank
S. MANIKUMAR
R. SURESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
