In a writ petition challenging an e-auction sale notice under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, the Court held that an effective alternative remedy is available. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P(MD)No.4719 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.03.2022 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR W.P(MD)No.4719 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)No.3938 of 2022
D.Periyasamy
...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Thuraiyur Branch,
Thuraiyur, Trichy District.
2.The Authorized Officer,
State Bank of India, Thuraiyur Branch, Thuraiyur, Trichy District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned proceedings in e-auction sale notice issued by the first respondent in his proceedings in TRC No.88/2018 (Old DRC No.308/2018-DRT Madurai), dated 29.01.2022 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, For M/s.D.Selvanayagam For Respondent : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
ORDER
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
The petitioner seeks to challenge the e-auction sale notice issued by the Debts Recovery Officer DRT-III, Chennai and notice is also issued to the petitioner under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2.The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the property has been brought under sale without affording a fair opportunity. The proceedings before the Recovery Officer DRT-III are akin to the proceedings under Order 21 of Code of Civil Procedure. The order of sale having been passed by the Recovery Officer DRT-III, it is open https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the petitioner to approach Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai
1/2
W.P(MD)No.4719 of 2022
under Section 27 of the Act, seeking deposit of 25% of the decree amount and seeking stay of the proceedings.
3.In view of the fact that an effective alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, we do not deem it fit to entertain the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition, therefore, is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
// True Copy //
/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
Myr
TO:
1.The Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, 6th Additional Office Building, Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. 2.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Thuraiyur Branch, Thuraiyur, Trichy District. 3.The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Thuraiyur Branch, Thuraiyur, Trichy District. +1 CC to M/s.N.DILIPKUMAR, Advocate ( SR-13083[F] dated 18/03/2022 ) ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.4719 of 2022 17.03.2022 ck(CO) GC(30.03.2022) 2P 5C
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an alternative remedy exists under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 to challenge an e-auction sale notice.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
D.Periyasamy
The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Thuraiyur Branch
The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Thuraiyur Branch
R.Subramanian
N.Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
