The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the sale of property by a secured creditor under SFA, 2002. The court held the petitioner was a defaulter who failed to comply with Tribunal conditions, negating any equity to invoke writ jurisdiction.
Petition W.P.No.18854 of 2021 dismissed; W.M.P.No.20140 of 2021 closed.
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: 08.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.P.No.18854 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.20140 of 2021
Gnanasekaran
..Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to restrain the respondents 1 and 2 from further alienate or dispossess the property from petitioner which is situated at D.No.10/479, Asaripatrai Street, Puliyampatty, Eadanagasali Town Panchayat Sankari Taluk, Salem District which is an extent of 825 Sq.fts., of land with residential building till the disposal of the SA No.475/2020 filed by the petitioner pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal of Coimbatore.
For the Petitioner : Mr. M.Saravanakumar
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
There is no merit in the petition and it appears to be a desperate attempt by a defaulter to cling on to a property that has already been sold by the respondent secured creditor in favour of the second respondent herein.
Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal. It is evident that the petitioner has challenged the steps taken by the respondent secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by way of S.A.475 of 2020. It also appears that the petitioner may not have complied with the conditions imposed by the appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner preferred an appeal and was required to put in a deposit, which may also not have been put in.
Accordingly, W.P.No.18854 of 2021 is dismissed. W.M.P.No.20140 of 2021 is closed. There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sra / kst
To:
The Authorised Officer Union Bank of India Vembadithalam Salem – 637 504.
Copy To
The Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore.
W.P.No.18854 of 2021
MG(CO) RGA(17/09/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in aid of a petitioner who is in default before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and failed to comply with its conditional orders.
Whether a secured creditor can proceed with alienation of property sold by SFA when the debtor has lost locus standi due to non-compliance with tribunal orders.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gnanasekaran
The Authorised Officer Union Bank of India
K.Gowri
Sanjib Banerjee
P.D. Audikesavalu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
