Dismissed

T.Ashok Surana, v. The Presiding Officer

Madras HC8 Jan 2018WP/287/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought declaration that a Deemed Recovery Certificate issued by the First Respondent in OA No.247 of 2015 violated Article 21. The Court held the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the RDBFIA, 1993, and dismissed the writ petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition not entertained and dismissed due to availability of alternative remedy.

T.Ashok Surana, Vs The Presiding Officer — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.01.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS. INDIRA BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.No.287 of 2018
T.Ashok Surana .. Petitioner
Vs.
1 The Presiding Officer
Debt Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai
4th Floor, Spencer Tower
770A, Anna Salai
Chennai – 600 002.
2 The Authorised Officer
Indian Bank, ARMB 1 Branch
55 Ethiraj Salai, Egmore
Chennai – 600 008. .. Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring that the DRC No.506 of 2017 issued in OA.No.247 of 2015 by the 1st Respondent is blind justice being practiced violating the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which must be put an end to, is ultra vires the power conferred by the statute and hence declare the same as illegal, non est and void.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ashok Surana
Party-in-Person

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

(2)

¶11

ORDER

¶12

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice )

¶13

This writ petition has been filed seeking declaration, declaring

¶14

that the certificate, being DRC.No.506 of 2017, issued by the first respondent/Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, in O.A.No.247 of 2015 against four certificate debtors, being (i) M/s.Tetrahedron Limited (Certificate Debtor No.1); (ii) the petitioner (Certificate Debtor No.2); (ii) Mrs.Simla Surana (Certificate Debtor No.3); and (iv) M/s.Surana Industries (Certificate Debtor No.4), is violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

The writ petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The writ petition is, therefore, not entertained.

¶16

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶17

(3)

¶18

To:

¶19

1 The Registrar Debt Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai 4th Floor, Spencer Tower

¶20

770A, Anna Salai

¶21

Chennai – 600 002.

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

(4)

¶24

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J.

(sasi)

W.P.No.287 of 2018

8.1.2018

http://www.judis.nic.in

T.Ashok Surana, v. The Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Ashok Surana, v. The Presiding 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

A. Sakthivel Vs The District Collector

C.v.Unnirajan Vs The Managing Director

K.Ravichandran, Vs The Commissioner, Hindu

Elephant G.Rajendran, Vs The Chief Secretary

M.Balaji Vs The Princial Home Secretary

R.Fathima Vs The Chief Secretary