The court dismissed a writ petition challenging a bank's possession notice under the SARFAESI Act. It held that a secured creditor can proceed with assets even during DRT proceedings, and aggrieved parties must approach the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Petition W.P.No.33088 of 2019 was dismissed; earlier order was vacated.
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: 27.04.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.No.33088 of 2019
and
WMP.NO.6784 of 2021, 33523 of 2019
1. Maruthai
2. M.Gowthami
3. K.Krishnamoorthy ..Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Authorized Officer
City Union Bank Ltd.
Branch Office at No.812A South Street
Jothy Complex, Aandimadam
Panchayat Union Office
Vilanthai, Ariyalur District.
2. The Branch Manager
City Union Bank Ltd.
No.812A South Street
Jothy Complex, Aandimadam
Panchayat Union Office
Vilanthai, Ariyalur District. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the record of the first respondent pertaining to the impugned possession notice dated 21.10.2019 and consequential auction notice dated 08.11.2019 and quash the same, consequently forbear the respondents from taking any action against the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act without recourse of the procedure contemplated in proviso of Section 19(1) of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 while pending adjudication of O.A.No.394/2019 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai.
For Petitioners
: Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan
For Respondents : Mr.Sivaraman
ORDER
(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The petitioners have sought to challenge the steps taken by the respondent bank to realise the debt due from the petitioners on the ground that a substantial part of the loan that may have been sanctioned in the petitioners' favour was misappropriated by a bank employee and the petitioners are being held liable therefor.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
kpl
To
The Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai.
W.P.No.33088 of 2019
JP-II(CO)
EU 8.6.2021
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the pendency of proceedings under Section 19 of the RDDBFI Act prevents a secured creditor from proceeding against secured assets.
Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a private bank for quashing possession notices under the SARFAESI Act.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Maruthai and others
The Authorized Officer City Union Bank Ltd. and others
Sanjib Banerjee
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
