High Court of Madras disposed of writ petitions challenging a tender-cum-auction sale notice under the SARFAESI Act. The court held the petition became infructuous as the auction had no bidders and dismissed the stay application pending appellate disposal.
Writ petition disposed of as infructuous; interim stay lifted; 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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.02.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
W.P.No.30366 of 2016
and
W.M.P.No.26332 of 2016
Mr.K.V.Alagesan
.. Petitioner
versus
55 Ethiraj Salai, Chennai 600 008.
.. Respondents
2
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in Tender-cum-Auction Sale Notice dated 30/7/2016 and to quash the same and further direct the first respondent not to proceed with any precipitating action under SARFAESI Act, pending disposal of the Appeal in AIR No.687 of 2015 on the file of the third respondent, challenging the order dated 5/8/2015 in S.A.No.24 of 2014 on the file of the second respondent.
For petitioner : Mr.E.Omprakash for M/s. Ramalingam & Associates For respondents : Mr.A.V.Radhakrishnan (for R1)
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J. )
Borrower has filed S.A.No.270/13, challenging the possession notice dated 28.10.2013, issued under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Guarantor/writ petitioner has also filed S.A.No.24 of 2014, challenging the sale notice dated 20.12.2013. After adjudication vide common order in S.A.No.270 of 2013 and S.A.No.24 of 2014, dated 05.08.2015, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, has dismissed both the above matters.
of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. Pending disposal of the same, AIR No.687 of 2015, has been filed for waiver.
3
"Notice regarding admission returnable in two weeks.
2. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the Tender cum Auction Sale Notice dated 30.07.2016. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner filed S.A.No.24 of 2014 on the file of the 4th respondent challenging the measures taken by the 1st respondent under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act and the DRT, passed the final order dated 05.08.2015 dismissing the said
4
S.A., and aggrieved by the said order, appeal has also been filed by the petitioner before the DRAT, Chennai, and the appeal is still pending consideration.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent is taking effective steps to sell the property in the auction sale and unless this court restrains the respondent from proceeding further with regard to the sale notice, hardship will be caused to the petitioner.
4. Taking into consideration the difficulties expressed by the petitioner and considering the averments made in the Writ Petition, there will be an order of interim stay for a period of 4 weeks, staying the impugned Tender cum Auction Sale Notice dated 30.07.2016, issued by the 1st respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition. List after 4 weeks."
the said AIR No.687 of 2015, appeal has not been numbered.
5
costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.M.K., J.] [M.G.R., J.] 08.02.2017
Index: Yes/No. Internet: Yes ars
6
S. MANIKUMAR, J. AND M.GOVINDARAJ, J.
ars
To
W.P.No.30366 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.26332 of 2016
08.02.2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether writ petition challenging auction sale notice under SARFAESI Act is maintainable when truncation fee was non-paying and has become infructuous due to absence of bids.
Whether interim stay order should be continued pending disposal of pending appeal to DRAT in sanction to recover arrears.
Whether writ petition should be dismissed as infructuous as auction notice was ineffective due to no bidders and appeal pending.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr.K.V.Alagesan
The Authorised Officer Karur Vysya Bank
M/s. Jai Santhosh Logistics (India) Pvt Ltd
M/s. Jai Santhosh Logistics (India) Pvt Ltd
The Registrar Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
The Registrar Debts Recovery Tribunal
S.MANIKUMAR
M.GOVINDARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
