Disposed

V.Ilango v. The Presiding officer

Madras HC15 Nov 2019WP/32199/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II to decide an application. The Court noted the vacancy in the DRT-II and directed the DRT-I holding additional charge to decide the urgent case under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Presiding Officer of DRT-I, Chennai, holding additional charge of DRT-II, to take up the application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and pass orders on merits.

V.Ilango Vs The Presiding officer — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.11.2019

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE Dr.VINEET KOTHARI

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶7

W.P.No.32199 of 2019

¶8

and WMP No.32477 of 2019

¶9

V. Ilango .... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Presiding Officer,
Hon'ble DRT II Chennai
Dewa Towers
770A Anna Salai,
IV Floor,
Chennai – 600 002
2. The Authorised Officer,
LIC Housing Finance Limited
“Harrington Chambers”
Block “A” (1 st Floor) & Block C
No.30/1A, Abdul Razack,
1 st Street,
Saidapet,
Chennai-600 015 .... Respondents

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to decide the SA No.74 of 2019 on its file within a time frame.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.P. Uday Baskar
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by Dr.VINEET KOTHARI,J.,)

¶12

The petitioner has approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to decide the SA No.74 of 2019 on its file within a time frame.

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

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

¶15

The grievance of the petitioner borrower in the present petition is that in the absence of any Presiding Officer in Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, as earlier incumbent in the Debts Recovery Tribunal -II is retired in May 2019, the incumbent posted there has not taken up the cases though the charge of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II has been given to Debts Recovery Tribunal-I as stated in paragraph-6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in these circumstances, this Court may exercise extraordinary jurisdiction and grant relief to the petitioner as against the coercive steps taken by the respondent Bank in pursuance of the Notice issued under Section 13(2) Demand Notice on 13.07.2018 as well as the Possession Notice dated 24.12.2018 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act as against the petitioner.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶17

We are constrained to observe that the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, who is holding additional charge of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, in the absence of regular incumbent, should take up at least the cases of urgent nature like in the present case, as submitted by the petitioner.

¶18

We have not expressed any opinion about the desirability to grant interim relief in the present case as we are not touching the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner However, we feel that the Debts Recovery Tribunal, to which, the charge of relevant jurisdiction is vested with, should be in a position to take up the urgent cases.

¶19

In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Bench, with whom, the appropriate jurisdiction of the petitioner's case lies, to take up the application filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. We, accordingly, direct the petitioner to appear before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, in the first instance on 20.11.2019.

¶20

2 of 3

¶21

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

¶22

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

¶23

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sr
To
The Presiding Officer,
Hon'ble DRT II Chennai
Dewa Towers
770A Anna Salai,
IV Floor,
Chennai – 600 002
W.P.No.32199 of 2019
rsk(co)
nr 17/12/2019
3 of 3

¶24

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

V.Ilango v. The Presiding officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Ilango 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

Vs

M/S Futura Fibres Vs Commisisoner of Central

Aashimgulati Vs 1.THE Secy. to Govt.

The Asst. Commissioner (Ct) Vs Hindustan Lever Ltd.

M/S Bharat Logistics Solutions Vs Commissioner of Customs

The Commissioner of Central Vs Sri Amirtha Sago Industries