Dismissed

S.Thyagavalli v. Authorized Officer

Madras HC1 Mar 2021WP/4553/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition filed by a defaulting borrower challenging the issuing of a notice for physical possession of secured property. The Court held that the Writ Court is not the appropriate forum due to the availability of the Debts Recovery Tribunal as an efficacious alternative remedy, noting the petitioner sought to avoid the mandatory deposit requirement under the DRT Act.

What did the court decide?

W.P.No.4553 of 2021 disposed of leaving the petitioner free to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal; W.M.P.No.5176 of 2021 closed; no order as to costs.

S.Thyagavalli Vs Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.03.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶7

W.P.No.4553 of 2021

¶8

and

¶9

W.M.P.No.5176 of 2021

¶10

S.Thyagavalli ... Petitioner

¶11

-vs-

¶12

Authorized Officer

¶13

Housing Devlopment Finance Corporation Ltd. 2nd Floor ITC Centre, 760, Anna Salai Chennai- 600 002.

¶14

... Respondent

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus to call for the records of respondent in Impugned dated 12.01.2021 and quash the same as illegal arbitration and non-est-in-law and consequently forbear the respondent from taking physical possession of property in No.13 of Annai Nagar, Mahatma Gandhi Street, Korattur, Chennai- 600076 comprised in Survey No.147/ 1 (part) in all measuring 1219 Sq.Ft.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sasikannan

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(Made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶19

This is another of those utterly useless petitions carried by a defaulter to ward off the secured creditor's attempts to proceed against the secured assets.

¶20

It is admitted that a notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was issued by the respondent bank on February 24, 2020, calling upon the

¶21

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

¶22

petitioner herein to pay a sum in excess of Rs.43.51 lakhs. The petitioner seeks to proffer the excuse of the pandemic to justify the failure of the petitioner to comply with the demand.

¶23

It now appears that a notice for obtaining physical possession of the relevant property has been issued on January 12, 2021. It is elementary that upon a secured creditor taking steps under Section 13 (4) of the said Act, any person aggrieved thereby may approach the appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal. Ordinarily, the Debts Recovery Tribunal requires a certain amount of the debt due to be put in as a condition precedent to passing any order against the creditor or impeding the secured assets being proceeded against. There is no doubt that the petitioner herein has sought to avoid the Debts Recovery Tribunal in apprehension that the petitioner may be required to put in a substantial deposit.

¶24

Since there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and a banker-constituent disagreement necessarily involves disputed questions of facts, the Writ Court is not the appropriate forum to receive the present grievance. W.P.No.4553 of 2021 is disposed of by leaving the petitioner free to approach the appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.5176 of 2021 is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sra To The Authorized Officer Housing Devlopment Finance Corporation Ltd. 2nd Floor ITC Centre 760, Anna Salai Chennai- 600 002. W.P.No.4553 of 2021 AAB(CO) RMP(18/03/2021)

¶25

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

S.Thyagavalli v. Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Thyagavalli v. 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

Dr.M.Senthilnathan. Vs Reserve Bank of India

Smt.R.Sasikala Vs the District Collector

Gnanaprakasam Vs the District Collector

The State of Tamilnadu Vs B.Deepankumar

M.Natarajan Vs The District Collector

M/S. Sinduja and Co., Vs Authorised Officer