Disposed

P.K.Kandaswamy v. M/s. Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company

Madras HC20 Dec 2019WP/35191/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the initiation of SARFAESI proceedings. directing the financial institution to defer further action until the status of the pending numberless civil suit was regularized in the receiving Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

The 1st respondent directed to defer further proceedings under notice dated 28.11.2019 pending regularization of the civil suit in the receiving court.

P.K.Kandaswamy Vs M/s. Reliance Asset Reconstruction… — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 20.12.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALTHA

¶7

WP.No.35191 of 2019
and W.M.P.No.35969 & 35971 of 2019
1.P.K.Kandasamy
2.Mrs.K.Saraswathy ....Petitioners
vs.
1.M/s.Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.,
Corporate Office:Reliance Centre, 6 th Floor
Santacruz (East),
Mumbai-400 055.
2.The Chief Manager,
City Union Bank Ltd.,
Mount Road Branch (Anna Salai Branch)
706, Anna Salai,
Thousand Lights,
Chennai 600 006.
3. R.Sekar
4.N.Venugopal
5.M/s.Vasu Enterprises,
rep.by its proprietor,
N.Venugopal ...Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India prays to issue a Writ of Certiorari
calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings
of the 1 st respondent made in Ref:Vasu Ent:Reliance ARC CUB 2014
(1)Trust dated 28.11.2019 so as to quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Jothi for Mr.C.Samadharama Arasu For Respondents: Mrs.S.R.Sumathy for R1

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.,]

¶12

The petitioners herein as plaintiffs filed Civil Suit in C.S.No.858 of 2013 on the file of this Court praying for the following reliefs:

¶13

a) to declare that the plaintiffs are not liable to pay any amount including the claim of Rs.60,58,464.05 (Sixty Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Four and Paisa Five only) either as principal or by way of any interest in respect of any of the financial dealings of the 1^st defendant Bank with the 3^rd defendant and his business concerns'

¶14

b) to grant mandatory injunction directing the 1^st defendant to release and handover the Title deeds with respect to the suit schedule mentioned items 1 and 2 of properties with no liability or encumbrance attached to it;

¶15

(c) To grant permanent injunction restraining the 1^st defendant in any manner dealing with the property of the plaintiffs which is more fully stated in the schedule item nos.1 and 2 of this suit;

¶16

(d) to award exemplary costs of this suit to the plaintiffs payable by the defendants;

¶17

(e) To pass any other order or direction as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice;

¶18

The petitioners / plaintiffs, pending disposal of the Suit, filed Original Application in O.A.No.428 of 2014 praying for an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the proposed 5^th respondent namely, Mrs.Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., or nobody acting as his agent or anybody representing the 1^st defendant from in any manner dealing with the property of the plaintiffs, which is morefully stated in the schedule property.

¶19

The learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 12.06.2014, has directed both the parties to maintain Status Quo as on that date till 19.06.2014 and thereafter, the said interim order of status quo was extended till 24.11.2014, vide order dated 10.11.2014 in O.A.No.428 of 2014 in C.S.No.858 of 2013.

¶20

Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that thereafter, despite the best efforts made by the counsel appearing for the plaintiff in the Civil Suit, applications could not be listed for extension of interim order and in the meanwhile, the said Civil Suit was ordered to be transferred to the file of City Civil Court and despite the said

¶21

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

¶22

order of transfer, the Suit as well as the Interlocutory Applications have not been numbered and in the meanwhile, the 1^st respondent proposed to initiate action under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and in this regard, detailed notice was also given on 15.11.2019, for which the 1^st respondent has also given his response dated 28.11.2019 pointing out among other things that the interim order granted by the Original Side of this Court has not been extended and as such, there is no restrain from taking action against the mortgaged property, mortgaged by clients. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that taking advantage of the intervening Christmas holidays, the 1^st respondent in all probability would sell the property, which is the subject matter of the Suit Schedule Property and hence prays for some interim protection.

¶23

The matter was listed for admission and having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite transfer to the Civil Court, the Suit has not been numbered, this Court has called for the particulars and directed to list all the matters today. The Registrar, City Civil Court has sent a communication dated 20.12.2019 to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court stating that C.S.No.858 of 2019 was received by the City Civil Court on 06.12.2019 by transfer from this Court and assigned O.S.No.9462 of 2019 on the file of the Court of XVIII th Additional City Civil Court and the Original Application filed in the Civil Suit were also renumbered in I.A.No.128/2019.

¶24

Ms.S.R.Sumathy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent would submit that notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act has also been issued, for which suitable response were also given in compliance of Section 13(3)(a) of the Act and it shall be followed by Possession Notice under Section 13(4) and other formalities and the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is that taking advantage of the holidays, suit properties are likely to be sold, is totally unfounded.

¶25

This Court has carefully considered the rival submission and also perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶26

A perusal of the materials would disclose that the petitioner had the benefit of interim order of Status Quo till 24.11.2014 and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the interim order could not be extended on account of non listing of the applications. However the fact remains that the Civil Suit was ordered to be transferred to the file of the City Civil Court. As per the above cited communication of the Registrar, City Civil Court dated 20.12.2019, it was also

¶27

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

¶28

renumbered as O.S.No.9462 of 2019 so also the Interlocutory Application was renumbered as 128/2019. It is open to the petitioners to move the said Court as to the early hearing and disposal of the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.128 of 2019 in pending Civil Suit on 03.01.2020 and till such time, the 1^st respondent shall defer further proceedings in terms of notice dated 28.11.2019.

¶29

The writ petition stands disposed of with the above
observation. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sk
Copy to:
1.XVII th Additional City Civil Court,
Chennai
2.the Registrar, City Civil Court,Chennai.
3.The Registrar Judicial,
High Court,Madras.
+1cc to Mrs.S.R.Sumathy , Advocate SR.No. 183120
WP.No.35191 of 2019
GP (CO)
A.SK(04/02/2020)

¶30

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

P.K.Kandaswamy v. M/s. Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Kandaswamy v. M/s. Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company

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

M/s. Ans Industries, Vs The Registrar

S.M.Kamalashasan, Vs The District Magistrate Cum District Collector

Sri Ramani Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs State Bank Of India

K.Muthulakshmi Vs The Presideing Officer

M/S.Vijayalakshmi Ginning Factory Vs M/s. Syndicate Bank

M/S.D.M.Silks Vs The Authorised Officer