Dismissed

Tamilarasu P v. the Authorised Officer

Madras HC1 Feb 2022WP(MD)/1890/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order under the SARFAESI Act forbearing recovery proceedings, the court observed that possession had already been taken and the sale confirmed. Consequently, the writ petition was held to be infructuous as the prima facie case for specific relief had vanished.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. No costs awarded.

Tamilarasu P Vs the Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.1890 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.02.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.1890 of 2022 and WMP(MD)No.1627 of 2022

Mr.P.Tamilarasu

... Petitioner

vs.

The Authorised Officer / Assistant General Manager, Indian Bank, Trichy Cantonment Branch, Trichy District.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondent bank from proceed with the order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy in Cr.M.P.No.3300/2021 u/Sec 14(1) and (2) of the SARFAESI Act dated 06.01.2022 for a period of one month from the date of getting the certified copy of the said order passed thereon and to challenge the same before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai in respect of the petitioner's residential property comprised in S.Nos.7/1, 7/2 Door No.61-A at Azad Nagar, 3^rd Street, Ramani Lakshmi Ammal Illam, K.K.Nagar, K.Sathanur SRO, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ponniah

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.R.Pandivel

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(Order of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. )

¶17

The writ petition is filed assailing the order passed under Section 14(1) and (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, dated 06.01.2022.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the petitioner is challenging the said order, possession was taken on 28.01.2022. Already, the sale had taken place on 03.03.2020 which was confirmed and now possession is also taken and given to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/2

¶20

W.P(MD)No.1890 of 2022

¶21

the purchaser. Hence, the prayer in the writ petition has become infructuous. However, the petitioner wants to challenge the said order and it is open to him to challenge.

¶22

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar (T&P)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

bala

¶27

+1 CC to M/s.M.PONNIAH, Advocate ( SR-3480[F] dated 01/02/2022 )

¶28

W.P(MD)No.1890 of 2022 DATED : 01.02.2022

¶29

RK(11/02/2022) 2P 2C

¶30

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

¶31

2/2

Tamilarasu P v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilarasu P 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

Rajamani Vs the Authorized Officer / Manager

Thomas .S Vs the Branch Manager

M/S Sri Lakshmi Industries Vs the Authorised Officer

Tulsidas.K.Patel Vs the District Revenue Officer

Suresh Vs the Managing Director

Murugeswari Vs the Commissioner