Allowed

Nagarajan. M v. The Authorized Officer

Madras HC23 Dec 2022WP(MD)/29086/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a notice issued by the Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Court allowed the petitioner to pay the dues in instalments and stayed coercive steps during the payment period.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to pay 25% of the outstanding amount on or before 30.01.2023 and the remaining balance in five consecutive equal monthly instalments. No coercive steps shall be taken until

Nagarajan. M Vs The Authorized Officer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.29086 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.29086 of 2022 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)No.23062 of 2022

M.Nagarajan

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Head Office, No.16, Circletop House, Aparna Complex, 7^th Floor, College Road, Greames Road,

¶12

Chennai – 600 006.

¶13

2.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, No.640, Periyakulam Road, Theni Branch, Theni District – 625 531.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Ceritorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the notice dated 29.11.2022 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8 of the

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

W.P(MD)No.29086 of 2022

¶19

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to give reasonable time to settle the dues and for such other reliefs.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Atham Ali

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh Standing Counsel

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(Order of the Court was made by D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)

¶24

Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh, learned standing counsel takes notice for the respondents. By consent of both the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission itself.

¶25

2.Challenging the notice, dated 29.11.2022 issued by the second respondent, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶26

3.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to pay 25% of the outstanding amount on or before 30.01.2023 and the remaining entire outstanding amount in five consecutive equal

¶27

2/5

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)No.29086 of 2022

¶30

monthly instalments and the same shall be paid on or before 30^th day of every English Calendar month until the entire payment is made and to that extent, he seeks indulgence of this Court to consider the request made by the petitioner, for which, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is agreeable, however, with liberty to the respondent Bank to proceed against the petitioner in case of default in payment of any one of the instalments.

¶31

4.Considering the submissions made on either side, the petitioner is directed to pay 25% of the outstanding amount on or before 30.01.2023 and the remaining outstanding amount shall be paid in five consecutive equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 28.02.2023 and the subsequent four instalments shall be paid on or before 30^th day of every English Calendar month, until the entire payment is made. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondent. If the petitioner fails to pay the amount in any one of the instalments, the respondent Bank may proceed further in accordance with law.

¶32

3/5

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(MD)No.29086 of 2022

¶35

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No

¶36

costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶37

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes ps

¶38

[D.K.K.,J.] [R.V.,J.] 23.12.2022

¶39

¶40

1.The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Head Office, No.16, Circletop House, Aparna Complex, 7^th Floor, College Road, Greames Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶41

2.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, No.640, Periyakulam Road, Theni Branch, Theni District – 625 531.

¶42

4/5

¶43

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

¶44

W.P(MD)No.29086 of 2022

¶45

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

¶46

¶47

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.29086 of 2022

¶48

DATED : 23.12.2022

¶49

5/5

¶50

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

Nagarajan. M v. The Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagarajan. M 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

S.Tamilarasi Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Thiruvikka.S Vs The Chief Election Commissioner

U.P.Sathaya Vs P.Karthikeyan

M/s.Sivalingam Silk Cotton Factory Vs The Authorized Officer

Balakrishnan. P Vs The Authorized Officer

M.Mahadevan, Vs The Commissioner