Writ petition challenging threatened dispossession and bank possession under SARFAESI Act dismissed as petitioner has effective alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).
Petition dismissed with liberty to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.11.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.30191 of 2019
and
W.M.P.No.30161 of 2019
Mrs.G.Meena Petitioner
Versus
1. The District Collector,
Chennai Collectorate,
Singaravelar Maligai,
No.62, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai 600 001.
2. The Tahsildar,
Ambattur Taluk, Chennai.
3. State Bank of India,
Guduvanchery Branch,
rep. by its Branch Manager,
Guduvancheri, Chennai.
4. Mr.Suresh Kumar Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to take appropriate action on the representation of the Petitioner dated 2.8.2019 and 19.8.2019 and to restore the public utility services and a shop sealed by them which is not belonging to the 4th respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Livingston For R1 & R2 : Mrs.A.Srijayanthi, Special Govt. Pleader For R3 : Ms.S.R.Sumathy
ORDER
(Order of the court was made by Dr.VINEET KOTHARI, J.)
Mrs.G.Meena, wife of P.R.Ganesan, residing at No.195, 2nd Street, Imayam Colony, Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai 600 101, filed this Petition in this court, aggrieved by the threatened dispossession of the Petitioner from the demised premises in which, she claims to be residing on the first floor.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ssk.
To:
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 given the availability of an effective alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction in a dispute involving leasehold rights and borrower status where a Debt Recovery Tribunal exists as a fact-finding forum.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
G.Meena
The District Collector, Chennai Collectorate
The Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai
State Bank of India
Mr.Suresh Kumar
Vineet Kothari
C.Saravanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
