Dismissed

Smt. P.Samathal v. The Presiding Officer

Madras HC21 Dec 2021WP/27007/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner-guarantor filed a writ petition challenging an e-auction sale under SARFAESI, seeking direction to remit sale proceeds and stay coercive steps pending a Securitization Appeal before the DRT. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding an effective remedy exists before the DRT.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; no coercive stay; S.A. disposed within one year.

Smt. P.Samathal Vs The Presiding Officer — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE: 21.12.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

¶5

W.P. No.27007 of 2021 and W.M.P. No.28452 of 2021

¶6

Smt. P.Samathal ..Petitioner v.

¶7

1 The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore.

¶8

2 The Authorized Officer, State Bank Of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 377/1, Dr. Nanjappa Road, Behind N.S. Palaniappan Nursing Home, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶9

Mr. P. Ramamoorthy

¶10

Idea Property Developers, Represented by its Proprietor, Mr.V.Rajamanickam, S/o. Veeraprakasham, No.312, Best Complex, Kumaran Road, Tirupur District. ..Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to receive the entire e-auction sale amount which was conducted by the 2^nd respondent dated 30.09.2021 in so far as the petitioner property is concerned and consequently directing the 2^nd respondent not to take any coercive steps against the schedule mentioned property in S.F.No.435, Patta No.2217 situated at No.15, Velampalayam, Tirupur Taluk, till the disposal of the S.A. Petition in S.A.No. 721/2021 on the file of the 1^st respondent within stipulated time.

¶12

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

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Dinesh for M. Natarajan

¶14

For Respondent : Mr. V. Kathirvelu – R2

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

(Order of the Court made by M. DURAISWAMY, J.)

¶17

The petitioner, who is the borrower, has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2 nd respondent to receive the entire e-auction sale amount which was conducted by the 2 nd respondent dated 30.09.2021 in so far as the petitioner's property is concerned and consequently directing the 2 nd respondent not to take any coercive steps against the schedule mentioned property in S.F.No.435, Patta No.2217 situated at No.15, Velampalayam, Tirupur Taluk, till the disposal of the S.A. Petition in S.A.No. 721/2021 on the file of the 1 st respondent within stipulated time.

¶18

2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner stood as guarantor in respect of the loan borrowed by the 3 rd respondent from the 2 nd respondent-Bank. Since the borrower committed default in repaying the loan amount, the 2 nd respondent-Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'SARFAESI'') and issued a notice dated 31.03..2021 under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act and also issued Possession Notice dated 28.07.2021 under section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act and took possession of the property. Thereafter, the property was brought to sale and sold in favour of the 4 th respondent.

¶19

3. Challenging the e-auction sale, the petitioner filed a Securitization Appeal in S.A.No.721 of 2021 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. Subsequently, the 1 st respondent issued the sale certificate in favour of the 4 th respondent, which was also challenged by the petitioner in S.A.No.721 of 2021, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore.

¶20

4.The guarantor has filed the above Writ Petition contending that she is ready and willing to pay the entire outstanding amount. When the Securitization Appeal is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, the petitioner should have sought for her remedy only before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing a Writ Petition. The petitioner can work out her remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, in accordance with law.

¶21

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

¶22

5. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain

¶23

the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore is requested to disposed of the Securitization Appeal in S.A.No.721 of 2021, as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

¶30

The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore.

¶31

The Authorized Officer,

¶32

State Bank Of India,

¶33

Stressed Assets Recovery Branch,

¶34

377/1, Dr. Nanjappa Road,

¶35

Behind N.S. Palaniappan Nursing Home, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶36

W.P. No.27007 of 2021

¶37

and W.M.P. No.28452 of 2021

¶38

RLD(CO)

¶39

RGA(06/01/2022)

¶40

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

Smt. P.Samathal v. The Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. P.Samathal v. The Presiding 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

Government of Tamilnadu Vs S.Vaidehi

E.M.Sekar, Vs the Joint Registrar of

G.G.Sharma Vs the Director of School Education

Chennai Metropolitan Water Vs State Bank of India

S.Palani Vs The District Collector

Teachers Recruitment Board Vs S. Rani