Dismissed

M/s.Marg Realities Ltd, v. Authorised Officer

Madras HC24 Feb 2017WP/35874/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the maintenance of a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act issued without Section 13(2) notice. It held the writ petition was not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to challenge illegality before the Debts Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal within four weeks; writ petition disposed of.

M/s.Marg Realities Ltd, Vs Authorised Officer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22.6.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶6

Writ Petition No.35874 of 2016

¶7

M/s. Marg Realities Limited rep. by its Authorised Representative Rabindra Kumar Samal Regd. Office at Sri Sai Subhodaya Apartments No.57/2B, East Coast Road Thiruvanmiyur Chennai 600 041. .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Authorised Officer Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. rep. by its Director Rasheeshchandrakant Shah Edelweiss House, Off. CST Road Kalina, Mumbai 400 098.

¶10

Edelweiss Financial Services India Limited rep. by its Chairman and CEO Rasheeshchandrakant Shah Edelweiss House Off. CST Road Kalina, Mumbai 400 098. .. Respondents

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the file of the 1st respondent relating to the possession notice under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act dated 01.7.2016 and quash the same.

¶12

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.Muralikumaran For M/s. Akhil R Bhansali For Respondent-1 : Mr.M.S.Krishnan, S.C. For Ms.S.Indumathi Ravi For Respondent-2 : Not ready -----

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

(Made by Huluvadi G.Ramesh,J)

¶16

The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the file of the 1st respondent relating to the possession notice under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act dated 01.7.2016 and to quash the same.

¶17

Heard Mr.Muralikumaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent.

¶18

The petitioner is the owner of the schedule property. The petitioner availed loan by creating a charge over the property and remitting the rent received from the schedule property towards repayment of loan availed by it. Thereafter, the petitioner stood as a guarantor for the loan borrowed by Marg Ltd, which is its sister concern, by mortgaging the scheduled property as collateral creating a second charge upon the said property. On 01.7.2016, the first respondent issued possession notice under Section 13(4) of the

¶19

¶20

SARFAESI Act, without issuing notice under Section 13(2). Though the petitioner submitted its objection on 25.7.2016 and requested to provide a copy of the demand notice, the first respondent did not furnish the same stating that they had already served a copy. Therefore, contending that the action of the first respondent to attach the schedule property, by issuing of notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, without issuing notice under Section 13(2), is in violation of the Rules, has come up with the above writ petition.

¶21

It appears that the petitioner has filed a suit before the civil Court and obtained an order of injunction and that when the order of injunction is in force, the schedule property has been entrusted to the first respondent by invoking the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Act, without serving notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, which is non-est in law.

¶22

We are, therefore, of the considered view that the petitioner ought to have approached either the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, as the writ petition is not maintainable. Therefore, liberty is given to the petitioner to challenge the wilful act/illegality committed by the first respondent, if any, before the appropriate forum, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

¶24

HULUVADI G.RAMESH,J, and RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN,J

¶25

kpl

¶26

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP No.30813 of 2016 is closed.

¶27

Index : Yes/No (H.G.R.J.) (T.K.R.J.) Internet: Yes/No 22.6.2017 kpl

¶28

W.P.No.35874 of 2016.

¶29

http://www.judis.nic.in

M/s.Marg Realities Ltd, v. Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Marg Realities Ltd, v. Authorised Officer

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

N.Rajendran, Vs P.Radhakrishnan

M/s.Diamond Engineering Vs The General Manager

M/s.Ganekar & Co. Vs The Canara Bank

M/s.Hotel Milestonnez India Vs The Authorised Officer

M/S. Shriram General Insurance Vs S. Pankajam

The Manager Vs Pachaiammal