Dismissed

Jeyapal .S v. The Authorised Officer

Madras HC19 Dec 2022WP(MD)/21423/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed the writ petition challenging a bank's possession notice issued after a property sale. The Court held the petition non-maintainable as prior statutory notices were not challenged and the auction sale had already concluded with a sale certificate issued.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the possession notice was dismissed as non-maintainable; no costs awarded.

Jeyapal .S Vs The Authorised Officer — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.21423 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

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶8

W.P.(MD) No.21423 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.15570 & 15572 of 2022

S.Jeyapal

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Uthamapalayam Branch, Uthamapalayam Town and Taluk, Theni District.

¶13

2.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Uthamapalayam Branch, Uthamapalayam Town and Taluk, Theni District.

¶14

3.The Zonal Officer, Madurai Branch, State Bank of India, Madurai.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.21423 of 2022

¶19

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Sold Notice dated 13.07.2022 No. Nil issued by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Jeyapal (Party-in-Person) For Respondents : Mr.P.Pethurajesh

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

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

¶23

Challenging the notice dated 13.07.2022, issued by the 1^st respondent bank, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶24

2 . The petitioner has borrowed agricultural loan from the respondents bank for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- on 08.09.2016 and for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/on 13.02.2017. The petitioner is not in a position to repay the amount, hence, the respondents bank declared the petitioner's loan account as NPA. Subsequently, the respondents bank issued auction notice on 18.05.2022 to brought the petitioner's property for sale. Thereafter, the respondents bank

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.21423 of 2022

¶28

issued the possession notice by its impugned notice dated 13.07.2022. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶29

3. The petitioner, who appeared in party-in-person, submitted that he has borrowed the said loan for agricultural purpose and the respondent has not followed the rules, while fixing the upset price for the petitioner's property. He further submitted that the respondents bank have sold his property for meager amount, whereas the value of the property is worth about Rs.4 Crores. Therefore, the impugned notice is liable to be set aside.

¶30

4 . The learned counsel appearing for the respondents bank submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the notices issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. He further submitted the sale was conducted on 22.06.2022 and the property of the petitioner has been sold for the amount of Rs.42,86,000/-. The petitioner has not impleaded the auction purchaser as party in the present Writ Petition and therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.21423 of 2022

¶35

5. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner has not challenged any of the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act viz., the notices issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4). Without challenging the aforesaid notices, the petitioner has now challenged only the impugned sale notice dated 13.07.2022. Further, sale has been conducted and the sale certificate has also been issued in favour of the auction purchaser. In view of the above, we are of the view that this Writ Petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

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

¶37

[D.K.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 19.12.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsm

¶38

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.21423 of 2022

¶41

¶42

1.The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Uthamapalayam Branch, Uthamapalayam Town and Taluk, Theni District.

¶43

2.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Uthamapalayam Branch, Uthamapalayam Town and Taluk, Theni District.

¶44

3.The Zonal Officer, Madurai Branch, State Bank of India, Madurai.

¶45

Page 5 of 6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.(MD) No.21423 of 2022

¶48

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

¶49

vsm

¶50

W.P.(MD) No.21423 of 2022

¶51

19.12.2022

¶52

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶53

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

Jeyapal .S v. The Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeyapal .S 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

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

Chandramohan .S.R Vs The Authorized Officer