Dismissed

S.Samdani v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

Madras HC7 Sept 2021WP/17534/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashment of orders and an e-auction by a Recovery Officer. The Court held that since an efficacious alternative remedy was available via appeal under Section 30 of the RDB Act, 1993, the petition was not entertained.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is not entertained and the petitioner is left free to pursue the alternative remedy before the appropriate forum.

S.Samdani Vs Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.09.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶7

W.P.No.17534 of 2021

¶8

S.Samdani ...Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1 Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd rep. by its Manager Tiruvallur Branch Tiruvallur District Tamil Nadu – 602 001. 2 The Recovery Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Chennai 5^th Floor, Dewa Towers 770-A, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002.

¶11

3 L.Madura ...Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in D.R.C.No.175 of 2014, dated 25.8.2014 in O.A.No.77 of 2012 and e-auction held on 30.06.2021 in D.R.C.No.175 of 2014 by the second respondent and quash the same.

¶13

For the Petitioner : Mr.B.Balaji

¶14

ORDER

¶15

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶16

The prayer in the petition is for quashing an order dated August 25, 2014 passed in D.R.C.No.175 of 2014 by the Recovery

¶17

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

¶18

Officer of the Debts Recovery Officer-III, Chennai along with the order passed while conducting an e-auction by the same official on June 30, 2021 in D.R.C. No.175 of 2014.

¶19

For a start, no good ground is made out as to why a belated challenge to an order passed in August, 2014 must be received now. More importantly, any order passed by a Recovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 is amenable to appeal before the tribunal itself in terms of Section 30 of the Act of 1993.

¶20

Accordingly, since there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner, W.P.No.17534 of 2021 is not entertained and the petitioner is left free to pursue such remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶21

W.M.P.No.18636 of 2021 is closed. There will be no order as to costs.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶23

//True copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

sasi

¶26

To:

¶27

The Manager Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd Tiruvallur Branch Tiruvallur District Tamil Nadu – 602 001. 2. The Recovery Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Chennai 5^th Floor, Dewa Towers 770-A, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002.

¶28

+2ccs to Mr.V.Karunakar, Advocate SR.No.45065

¶29

W.P.No.17534 of 2021

¶30

JP(CO) SU(16/09/2021)

¶31

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

S.Samdani v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Samdani v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

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

A.Mydeen Bi Vs The Branch Manager

The Authorized Officer Vs The Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate

Mohamed Iqbal Vs The Director

E.Nareshkumar Vs The Commissioner Corporation of

M.Anantaraman, Vs Director of School Education

A.Murugesan Vs The District collector