Disposed

R.Sundaresh v. The Authorized Officer

Madras HC21 Oct 2021WP/22182/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus for physical possession of property bought at auction under SARFAESI Act. Court held that alternative remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal exists under Section 17, rendering this writ jurisdiction not maintainable. Petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed leaving petitioner free to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. No order as to costs.

R.Sundaresh Vs The Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.10.2021

¶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.22182 of 2021

¶8

R.Sundaresh .. Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Authorized Officer, CANARA Bank, No.166, ARM Branch, Thiruvenkatasamy Road West, Coimbatore – 641 002.

¶11

M.Jothimani

¶12

M.Bharath .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus direct to the first respondent to take physical possession and hand over to the petitioner as time framed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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

¶16

The petitioner claims to have purchased a property at an auction conducted by the first respondent secured creditor under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶17

The immediate grievance of the petitioner is that despite the petitioner having paid due consideration for purchase of the property, no steps have been taken by the first

¶18

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

¶19

respondent to make over physical possession of the immovable property to the petitioner.

¶20

What the petitioner complains of is the failure on the part of the first respondent to complete the transaction in terms of a measure taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the said Act. Section 17 of the said Act permits any person aggrieved by any measure taken by a secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the Act to approach the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal with the grievance.

¶21

Since there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner by carrying a complaint to the appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not have been invoked.

¶22

Accordingly, W.P.No.22182 of 2021 is disposed of by leaving the petitioner free to approach the appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal in accordance with law.

¶23

There will be no order as to costs.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

bbr

¶29

¶30

The Authorized Officer, CANARA Bank, No.166, ARM Branch, Thiruvenkatasamy Road West, Coimbatore – 641 002.

¶31

W.P.No.22182 of 2021

¶32

MG(CO) SU(02/11/2021)

¶33

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

R.Sundaresh v. The Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sundaresh v. The Authorized Officer

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.Vijaya Vs The Authorised officer

Tmt. S.Umamaheswari Vs The High Court of Judicature at Madras

Ramesh @ John Senguttuvan Vs The District Collector

G.Prabhu Vs State of Tamil Nadu

K.Manogaran Vs Tamil nadu state Election Commissioner

People for Cattle in India (Pfci) Vs Principal Chief Conservator of