Writ petition challenging a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was dismissed. The Court held the notice is not arbitrary, relying on Mardia Chemicals, and allowed arguments regarding substantial payments only after action under Section 13(4) is taken.
Writ petition dismissed; no costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
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: 17/11/2017
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
The Chief Manager & Authorised Officer Andhra Bank Salem Branch Narasu's Arcade
No.53/24, II Agraharam Salem 636 001. ... Respondent
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the entire records in relating to the notice issued by the respondent under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act 54 of 2002) dated 4/9/2017 which was published in the daily newspaper namely, The Indian Express on 29/9/2017 and quash the same.
(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J)
Demand notice, dated 4/9/2017, issued under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is challenged in the instant writ petition.
/true copy/
+1cc to Mr.C.Munusamy, Advocate in sr.no.81621
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is arbitrary and liable to be quashed.
Whether the petitioner can challenge the demand notice under notice under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Whether substantial payments made by the petitioner preclude the bank from issuing the demand notice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mardia Chemicals v. Union of IndiaExplained¶14
AIR 2004 SC 2371 : 2004(4) SCC 311 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Chief Manager Andhra Bank Salem Branch
Writ Petitioner
S. Manikumar
R. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
