Dismissed

Taurus Apparels Pvt., Ltd., Represented by its is Director v. v.Arshad Ahmed

Madras HC9 Nov 2021WP/23912/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking restraint against a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, regarding eviction and proceedings against the petitioner's leasehold property. The court held that the DRT provided an efficacious alternative remedy and refused writ interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal; writ of mandamus denied.

Taurus Apparels Pvt., Ltd., Represented by its is… — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.11.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

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

¶7

Taurus Apparels Private Limited, rep. by its Director Vidya Sagar Yadav, New No.57/11, Old No.26/11, Arunodhaya Complex, Ponnamali High Road, Chennai-600 003 Now residing at S.F.No.119/1, 2 121/A&1B, Thuthipet, Ambur, Vellore District-635 811. .. Petitioner

¶8

¶9

V.Arshad Ahmed

¶10

M/s.Canara Bank, rep. by its Authorized Officer, Ambur Branch, Vellore District.

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the second respondent from initiating proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 or any other law, and also forbearing the respondents from forcibly evicting the petitioner from the residential portions occupied by petitioner in pursuant to the Lease Agreement dated 15.07.2019.

¶13

For the Petitioner : Ms.Thenmozhi Shivaperumal

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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

¶16

The grievance of the petitioner is that in connection with credit facilities obtained by the first respondent landlord, the second respondent secured creditor is purporting to proceed

¶17

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

¶18

against the property at which the petitioner has been lawfully inducted as a tenant by the first respondent.

¶19

It is the admitted position that the second respondent has resorted to measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The prayer in the petition is for restraining the secured creditor from taking up proceedings against the security or disturbing the petitioner's possession of the immovable property.

¶20

If a secured creditor takes any measure under Section 13 (4) of the Act of 2002, the remedy of any person aggrieved by such action or measure is to approach the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal with the grievance. Section 17 of the Act is worded in a wide manner and any person aggrieved may approach the relevant DRT.

¶21

Since there is an efficacious, alternative remedy available to the petitioner and since any investigation into the rights of the petitioner will involve disputed facts which cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence, the writ court should not interfere in matters of the present kind.

¶22

Accordingly, W.P.No.23912 of 2021 is dismissed and the petitioner is left free to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. W.M.P.No.25236 of 2021 is closed.

¶23