Allowed

M/s.I Building Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. The Authorised officer and chief Manager

Madras HC5 Oct 2020WP/11328/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act, the High Court of Madras directed the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 for an appeal, granting interim relief and directing the bank to defer further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to file appeal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act within 2 weeks; respondents to defer proceedings.

M/s.I Building Automation Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Authorised… — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

WP.No.11328 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 05.10.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN

¶6

AND THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA WP.No.11328 of 2020 and WMP.No.13812 of 2020 M/s.I Building Automation Pvt. Ltd., rep.by its Director, Jawahar K New NO.26, Plot No.144, 4^th Street, RR Colony, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083. .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Authorised Officer (Chief Manager) Karnataka Bank Ltd., P.B.No.599, Mahaveera Circle, Kankanady, Mangaluru 575 002 Dhakshina Kannada District. 2.The Manager, Karnataka Bank Ltd., Cathedral Road Branch Chennai 600 086. ...Respondents

¶7

1/4

¶8

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶9

WP.No.11328 of 2020

¶10

PRAYER:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Possession Notice dated 06.08.2020 issued by the 1^st respondent and to quash the same and consequentially a direction to the 1^st respondent to comply with the 'Credit Guarantee Scheme for Subordinate Debt (CGSSD) which is also called ''Distressed Assets Fund-Sub-ordinate Debt for MSMEs dated 24.06.2020.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Mohan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.A.Muraleedharan
For Respondents : Dr.S.R.Sundaram
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.,]

¶12

The petitioner made a challenge to the impugned notice issued under

¶13

Section 13(4) of the Securitisation of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

¶14

Security Interest Act, 2002, Act (in short 'SARFAESI Act') by the 1^st respondent.

¶15

Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

¶16

submit that the petitioner may be permitted to avail the appeal remedy under

¶17

2/4

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

WP.No.11328 of 2020

¶20

Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and this Court may also exclude the time

¶21

taken for prosecuting this Writ Petition and prays for appropriate orders.

¶22

This Court heard the submission of Mr.S.R.Sundaram, learned

¶23

counsel appearing for the respondent/Bank and also perused the counter

¶24

affidavit.

¶25

In the light of the submissions made, the petitioner is directed to avail the appeal remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, by making a challenge to the impugned notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, issued by the 1^st respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the jurisdictional Tribunal and the Tribunal may entertain the appeal, if the papers are otherwise in order,

¶26

without putting the issue relating to limitation and give a disposal to the application for interim relief and in accordance with law within a period of

¶27

four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, the respondents shall defer further proceedings. It may open to the Tribunal

¶28

to finally dispose of the appeal itself.

¶29

3/4

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶31

WP.No.11328 of 2020

¶32

M.SATHYANARAYANAN.,J,

¶33

and R.HEMALATHA.,J, sk

¶34

The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶35

Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

[M.S.N.,J] [R.H., J]
05.10.2020
Internet:Yes /No
Index: Yes/No
sk
WP.No.11328 of 2020

¶37

4/4

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in

M/s.I Building Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. The Authorised officer and chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.I Building Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. The Authorised officer and chief Manager

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

R.Sudha Vs K.Durairaj

J.Anbazhagan, Vs The Speaker

Shaji Purushothaman Vs Union of India

K.J.Tamilarasan Vs The Deputy Collector

R.Kamalakannan, Vs Bank of India

D.Ramakrishnan (M/Aged 56 years) Vs The District Collector