Dismissed

S.Amudha, v. Chief Manager/Authorized

Madras HC10 Sept 2018WP(MD)/19219/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an e-auction notice issued by Punjab National Bank. The court held that the matter must be addressed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal where a money application is pending.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed without costs, and consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

S.Amudha, Vs Chief Manager/Authorized — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.09.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P(MD)No.19219 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.17058 & 17059 of 2018

S.Amudha

... Petitioner

vs.

Chief Manager/Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch, 448-A Dr.Nanjappa road Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶11

Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, West Masi Street Branch, Madurai ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned e-auction sale notice issued by the 1^st respondent vide Ref.ARMB/515/2018 dated 08.08.2018 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to provide reasonable opportunity to initiate one time settlement scheme in a prescribed manner.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Mahendran For Respondents : No appearance

¶14

ORDER

¶15

(Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.)

¶16

This Writ Petition is directed against the impugned e-auction sale notice dated 08.08.2018 issued by the respondent Bank. However,in view of the pendency of O.A.No.285/2018 filed by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent Bank on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, we are unable to entertain this writ petition.

¶17

¶18

2.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to pay Rs.10 lakhs instead of Rs.9 lakhs for item No.7, since the earnest money deposit has also been fixed at Rs.9 lakhs for item No.7, this offer can be made before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, where O.A. is pending.

¶19

3.In view of the above, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶21

/True Copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶23

+1cc TO MR.K.MAHENDRAN ADVOCATE IN S.R.NO.83271.

¶24

¶25

DS RP SAR-3:10.09.2018: 2P/2C

¶26

W.P(MD)No.19219 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.17058 & 17059 of 2018 10.09.2018

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Amudha, v. Chief Manager/Authorized

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Amudha, v. Chief Manager/Authorized

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

J.Jeyaraj, Vs the Commissioner

S.Sethuraman, Vs the District Collector

Ayyadurai, Vs the District Collector

K.P.Selvam Vs the District Collector

Smt. J. Margert, Vs the District Magistrate/

K.Ganesan, Vs the Election Commissioner