Disposed

S.Harshanasabari v. The Authorised officer

Madras HC1 Jul 2022WP/6371/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an e-auction notice issued under the SARFAESI Act. The court extended the interim stay for three weeks to enable the petitioner to pursue a pending appeal at the Debts Recovery Tribunal where the presiding officer was unavailable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with liberty to pursue DRT appeal; interim order of status quo extended for three weeks.

S.Harshanasabari Vs The Authorised officer — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.07.2022

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA W.P.NO.6371 OF 2020

S.Harshanasabari

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The Authorised Officer State Bank of India URC Nagar, Erode.

¶11

Selvaraj.R

¶12

S.Ananthakumar .. Respondents

¶13

[R3 impleaded vide order dated 30.06.2020 in WMP No.10459/2020]

¶14

Prayer:

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the e-auction sale dated 26.02.2020 pursuant to the e-auction notice dated 23.01.2020 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to accept petitioner's payment.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

The writ petition was filed to challenge the auction sale notice dated 26.02.2020.

¶19

The writ petitioner, challenging the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. Since the matter was not heard by the DRT, Coimbatore for want of Presiding Officer, the writ petition was filed, wherein, an order of status quo was passed.

¶20

It is submitted that the property mortgaged by the second respondent, who is the father of the petitioner, was put to auction and sale has been confirmed in favour of the third respondent. However, the sale certificate has not been issued on account of the interim order passed by this Court. The facts aforesaid are relevant as the petitioner, who obtained educational loan, has failed to repay the same. The property, which remains the subject matter of auction, was mortgaged even by the petitioner's father for obtaining housing loan. Since the petitioner's father also defaulted in making payment, the respondent bank conducted auction to recover the dues with interest towards both the loan.

¶21

It is further submitted that the appeal is pending before the DRT, Coimbatore and it has not been pursued by the petitioner on account of the interim order of this Court in the writ petition, as, at the relevant point of time, DRT, Coimbatore was not functioning for want of Presiding Officer, though the matters were attached to DRT, Madurai.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the pending appeal before the DRT, Coimbatore by getting it numbered and since there is an interim order of status quo during the intervening period, it is extended for a period of three weeks, to enable the petitioner to pursue her appeal before the DRT, Coimbatore. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP Nos.7518, 7517 and 22926 of 2020 are closed.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

kpl

¶27

To:

¶28

The Authorised Officer State Bank of India URC Nagar, Erode.

¶29

Copy To The Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.M.Guruprasad, Advocate, S.R.No.42501 +1cc to Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.41834

¶31

W.P.No.6371 of 2020

¶32

GJ(CO) PM/13/07/2022

S.Harshanasabari v. The Authorised officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Harshanasabari v. The Authorised 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

Mahendran Vs Saravanamuthu

P.Venkatachalam Vs Mr.Vijayakumar

M.G.Subramani Vs The District Collector

Kotturpuram Youth Forum Vs Rajesh Lakhoni

N.Ramalingam Vs The Addl Secretary to

Sabarinathan Vs The District Collector