In this writ petition challenging disposal of assets without disclosure, the Madras High Court held the petition not maintainable. The court ruled that a writ of mandamus cannot issue unless the petitioner first approaches the authority with a representation, following settled legal principles.
The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
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.
W.P.No.33610 of 2022
DIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.12.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.33610 of 2022
R.Sahil Batra .. Petitioner
v.
rep by Joint Secretary (Banking Division) Department of Financial Services Ministry of Finance 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110 001
Page 1 of 10
W.P.No.33610 of 2022
Indian Bank
55, Ethiraj Salai Zonal Office Building, IV Floor Wellington Estate Egmore, Chennai 600 008
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to disclose, provide especially the details relating to the disposed off movables and immovable properties of M/s Kiran Group of Companies details of valuation of the properties, value of the shares sold in the market, details of the auction purchasers, details of sale consideration and money adjusted to our out standings.
For Petitioner :: Mrs.Kamachi D
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
Mr.R.Sahil Batra has come to this Court praying for issuance of a
_____________ Page 2 of 10_
W.P.No.33610 of 2022
writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to disclose, provide especially the details relating to the disposed off movables and immovable properties of M/s Kiran Group of Companies, details of valuation of the properties, value of the shares sold in the market, details of the auction purchasers, details of sale consideration and money adjusted towards outstandings.
_____________ Page 3 of 10_
W.P.No.33610 of 2022
for extension of time to realize the export bills to the Reserve Bank of India at Chennai, Indian Bank, Thousand Lights Branch, the second respondent herein miserably failed to recommend to the Reserve Bank of India for the extension of time to realize the export bills in order to receive the proceeds of exports. In view thereof, Kiran Overseas Limited had filed suits for recovery against the importers in the High Court of Bombay. But in a criminal complaint filed before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for Economic Offences-I at Egmore, Chennai, they were discharged. After sometime, the business of the petitioner was declared as NPA by the respondent Bank. Subsequently, the respondents 2 & 3 had also initiated recovery proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai and the details of the value of the properties, both movable and immovable, value of the shares, the details to whom the properties were sold, were not revealed to the petitioner's parents, being the Directors. In the meanwhile, the Vigilance Department also lodged a complaint on 27.06.98 before the Central Bureau of Investigation against
_____________ Page 4 of 10_
W.P.No.33610 of 2022
M/s Kiran Overseas Limited, Chennai and its Directors late O.P.Batra, Mr.Ranjiv Batra and Mrs.Kiran Batra. Thereafter, a final report was also filed on 19.04.2001 against M/s Kiran Overseas Limited at Chennai and at New Delhi and other persons named therein for the offences mentioned therein. Now the grievance of the petitioner, as alleged by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the respondents 2 & 3, with the help of fourth respondent, had sold away all the movable and immovable properties after 1995 which are worth about Rs.150 Crores and the amount is said to have been adjusted towards the petitioner's loan outstandings. Therefore, a representation was given. Since no action is taken, the petitioner has been advised to come to this Court.
_____________ Page 5 of 10_
W.P.No.33610 of 2022
2 SCC 630 has held as follows:-
“24. As the appeals fail on merits we need not discuss the technical difficulty which an application for a writ of certiorari would encounter when no quasi-judicial proceeding was before the High Court. The powers of the High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the wellrecognised rule that no writ or order in the nature of a Mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which is subject to certain exceptions, applied by us, as it is in England, when a writ of Mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we find it set out in Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd edition, Vol. 13, p. 106):
“As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had
_____________ Page 6 of 10_
W.P.No.33610 of 2022
the means of considering whether or not he should comply and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the: mandamus desires to enforce, and that demand was met by a refusal.”
Again in State of Haryana and another v. Chanan Mal and others, (1977)
1 SCC 340, the Apex Court has observed as follows:-
"49.(3). Any petitioner who applies for a writ or order in the nature of a Mandamus should, in compliance with a well known rule of practice, ordinarily, first call upon the authority concerned to discharge its legal obligation and show that it has refused or neglected to carry it out within a reasonable time before applying to a Court for such an order even where the alleged obligation is established."
support of the writ petition by us does not show that the petitioner has made
_____________ Page 7 of 10_
W.P.No.33610 of 2022
any such representation before knocking the doors of this Court. Therefore,
the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Speaking/Non speaking order (T.R.,A.C.J.) (D.B.C.,J.) Index : yes/no 14.12.2022
ss
To
_____________ Page 8 of 10_
W.P.No.33610 of 2022
Indian Bank 55, Ethiraj Salai Zonal Office Building, IV Floor Wellington Estate Egmore Chennai 600 008
_____________ Page 9 of 10_
W.P.No.33610 of 2022
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
ss
W.P.No.33610 of 2022
14.12.2022
_____________ Page 10 of 10_
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued when the petitioner has not first approached the respondents with a representation.
Whether the petition is maintainable without prior exhaustion of remedies by making a representation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. and others v. Union of IndiaApplied¶39
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. and others v. Union of India, (1974) 2 SCC 630 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana and another v. Chanan Mal and othersApplied¶50
State of Haryana and another v. Chanan Mal and others, (1977) 1 SCC 340 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.Sahil Batra
Union of India
Indian Bank
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited
T.Raja
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
