Petitioners seeking writ to restrain dispossession from mortgaged property pending SARFAESI appeal and civil suits. Court held unregistered lease deeds inadmissible for primary purpose and dismissed petition as not maintainable due to existence of efficacious alternative remedy under SARFAESI Act.
Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable.
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 06.10.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA WP.No.10477 of 2020 and WMP.Nos.12733 & 12735 of 2020
1.Panneerselvam 2.G.Saravanan 3.Thirulogasundar 4.S.Manju ..Petitioner
Versus
1.The Authorised Officer, Corporation Bank, R.S.Puram Branch, NO.594/3, Obli Towers, D.B.Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore.
2.I.Vijayakumar
3.Durairajpoornam ...Respondents PRAYER:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from dispossessing us from D.NO.5, Kasthuribai Nagar, 2nd cross, Ganapathy, Coimbatore 641 006 except in accordance with law pending S.A.No.208 of 2019 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Ms.Kavya Bhaskaran
for Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondents : Mr.Umapathi for R1
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.,]
The petitioner claiming to be the Tenant under the second respondent in respect of the property bearing Door No.5, Kasthuribai Nagar, 2nd Cross, Ganapathy, Coimbatore 641 006. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the 2nd respondent has availed Housing Loan from the 1st respondent and alleging that he has committed default in payment of dues, action was initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Act (in short 'SARFAESI Act') and the said property was brought to auction, wherein the 3rd respondent has purchased the said property. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent also made a challenge to the auction proceedings by filing an appeal in S.A.No.208 of 2019, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore and since, the 3rd respondent without resorting to due process of law, tried to dispossess the petitioners, they also filed O.S.Nos.689, 688, 720 and 721 of 2019, on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore, praying for a judgment and decree for permanent injunction restraining the 3rd respondent from illegally dispossessing them and the said Suits were also pending.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CJ CONF) //True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sk
| To |
|---|
| 1.The Authorised Officer, Corporation Bank, R.S.Puram Branch, NO.594/3, Obli Towers, D.B.Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore. |
| 2.The Principal District Munsif, Coimbator. |
| +1cc to Mr.N.Umapathi,Advocate, SR.No.33344 +1cc to Mr.R.Jayaprakash, Advocate, SR.No.32915 |
| WP.No.10477 of 2020 |
SVI(CO) KKV/19/11/2020
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition challenging dispossession under SARFAESI Act is maintainable despite existence of alternative remedies and pending civil suits.
Whether unregistered lease deeds executed after mortgage registration can be utilized to restrain dispossession by a secured creditor.
Whether the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy preventing the writ jurisdiction from intervening in SARFAESI proceedings.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Panneerselvam and others
The Authorised Officer, Corporation Bank, R.S.Puram Branch
I. Vijayakumar
Durairajpoornam
M. SATHYANARAYANAN
R. HEMALATHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
