Dismissed

Chandramohan .S.R v. The Authorized Officer

Madras HC19 Dec 2022WP(MD)/20179/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ directing bank to release property under SARFAESI Act. Having been directed to approach bank for O.T.S., petitioner approached bank suitably, which issued notice under Section 13(2) after rejecting O.T.S. Representation request and issue of notice makes petition infructuous; petition dismissed with liberty to approach DRT.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai.

Chandramohan .S.R Vs The Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.20179 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶7

W.P.(MD) No.20179 of 2022 and

¶8

W.M.P.(MD)No.14678 of 2022

S.R.Chandramohan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Authorized officer, Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, Madurai Regional Office, No.31, Besant Road, Chinna Chockikulam, Madurai-625002.

¶13

2.The Regional Manager, Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, Madurai Regional Office, No.31, Besant Road, Chinna Chockikulam, Madurai-625002 ... Respondents

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.20179 of 2022

¶17

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the property being a house in Plot No.419, East Street, K.K.Nagar, Madurai comprised in R.S.No. 159/4 part, Tallakulam Village, Madurai North Taluk and Madurai District and measuring 2 grounds 200 Sq.ft and Property No.2 of B Schedule in the notice dated 02/07/21 issued under Section 13(2) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act from the Mortgage.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilipkumar Standing Counsel

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

[Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.]

¶22

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the property being a house in Plot No.419, East Street, K.K.Nagar, Madurai comprised in R.S.No.159/4 part, Tallakulam Village, Madurai North Taluk and Madurai District and measuring 2 grounds

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.20179 of 2022

¶26

200 Sq.ft and Property No.2 of B Schedule in the notice dated 02/07/21 issued under Section 13(2) of of the SARFAESI Act.

¶27

2 . When the matter was came up for admission on 29.08.2022, this Court

¶28

has passed the following order:

¶29

“The petitioner is permitted to approach the Bank seeking

¶30

for fresh One Time Settlement. Upon receipt of the same, it is open to the respondents bank to consider the representation of the petitioner giving due opportunity in the light of various facts and circumstances and keeping in mind their interest as well.”

¶31

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents bank submitted that as per the direction of this Court, the petitioner has approached the respondents bank and made a representation seeking for One Time Settlement. The said request made by the petitioner has been considered and rejected by the respondent vide a proceeding dated 27.09.2022. A copy of the said proceeding dated 27.09.2022 has also been produced before this Court. He further

¶32

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.20179 of 2022

¶35

submitted that the respondents bank has issued a notice on 02.07.2021 to the petitioner, under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and hence, he prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition.

¶36

4 . In view of the specific stand taken by the respondents bank, we are of

¶37

the view that the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition has become infructuous and hence, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, if he so advised. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶39

[D.K.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 19.12.2022

¶40

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsm

¶41

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.(MD) No.20179 of 2022

¶44

¶45

1.The Authorized officer, Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, Madurai Regional Office, No.31, Besant Road, Chinna Chockikulam, Madurai-625002.

¶46

2.The Regional Manager, Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, Madurai Regional Office, No.31, Besant Road, Chinna Chockikulam, Madurai-625002

¶47

Page 5 of 6

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P.(MD) No.20179 of 2022

¶50

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. and R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶51

vsm

¶52

W.P.(MD) No.20179 of 2022

¶53

19.12.2022

¶54

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Chandramohan .S.R v. The Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandramohan .S.R v. The 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

The Manager (Hr-Ee and Ce) Vs Aron K.Thiravia Raj

S.Manimaran, Vs Mrs.M.K.S.Subashini, M.Sc.,B.Ed.

Ambika Cotton Mills Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise

Chinnamani, Vs S.Subramanian

Sahayaraj F Vs The Authorized Officer/ Chief Manager

Jeyapal .S Vs The Authorised Officer