The Madras High Court held a writ petition seeking a stay on forcible possession of a rented house to be not maintainable. The court followed the Supreme Court's ruling in ICICI Bank v. Umakanta Mohapatra and dismissed the petition.
Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
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
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.11.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH AND THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.THARANI
Sakthivel ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 1 to 4 respondents, his subordinate, official and men from taking forcible possession of the House situated at Old Door No.H.31, New Door No.H.41, Rani Mangammal Colony, Dindigul Town, Dindigul District, except due process of law contemplated under the Rent Control Act vide representation dated 09.11.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Jeyakumar Additional Govt. Pleader For R3 & R4 : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH,J.]
The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 from taking forcible possession of the house situated at Old Door No.H.31, New Door https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ No.H.41, Rani Mangammal Colony, Dindigul Town, Dindigul District, except under due process of law contemplated under the Rent Control
2
Act, vide the petitioner's representation dated 09.11.2018.
3
provisions of SARFEASI Act as that would amount to stultifying the statutory right of protection given to the tenant.
"Despite several judgments of this court, including a judgment by Hon'ble Mr.Justice Navin Sinha, as recently as on 30.01.2018, in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr., vs. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85, the High Courts continue to entertain matters which arise under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), and keep granting interim orders in favour of persons who are Non-Performing Assets (NPAs).
The writ petition itself was not maintainable, as a result of which, in view of our recent judgment, which has followed earlier judgments of this Court, held as follows:-
"32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops."
The writ petition, in this case, being not maintainable, obviously, all orders passed must perish, including the impugned order, which is set aside."
4
Sd/
Assistant Registrar(CO)
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
To
Debts Recovery Tribunal,Madurai.
+1cc to Mr.C.MAYIL VAHANA RAJENDRAN, Advocate, SR.No. 95838 +1cc to Mr.N.DILIPKUMAR, Advocate, SR.No.95666 +1cc to M/s.Special Government Pleader,SR.No. 95377
W.P.(MD)No.22768 of 2018 15.11.2018
AKV KK/SKN/SAR-4/06.12.2018/4P-9C
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the availability of an alternative remedy under the SARFAESI Act.
Whether a High Court has jurisdiction to entertain writs regarding possession disputes involving non-performing assets under SARFAESI Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
ICICI Bank Limited v. Umakanta MohapatraFollowed¶3
ICICI Bank Limited v. Umakanta Mohapatra
Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr., vs. Mathew K.C.Referred¶23
(2018) 3 SCC 85 · Who else cites this
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd., vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. and AnotherReferred¶25
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd., vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd., and Another
Sakthivel
The District Collector, Dindigul District
The Tahsildar, Dindigul West Taluk
The Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India
The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India
Rajendran
R.SUBBIAH
R.THARANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
