Dismissed

M/S.Southern Gold Pvt. Ltd. v. the Chief Manager

Madras HC12 Sept 2023WA/1674/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a writ appeal challenging a lower court order denying maintainability of a writ petition. The Court held the petition was not maintainable as the appropriate remedy lay with the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to seek remedies before the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed with liberty to the appellant to file a reply statement and counter-claim with appropriate application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

M/S.Southern Gold Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chief Manager — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.A.No.1674 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.9.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

W.A.No.1674 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.11310 of 2019

¶7

Southern Gold Pvt. Ltd. Rep by its Director Mr.Collins C.A 2/573-A-1 Christopher Nagar, Ancherry P.O., Thrissur- 680006. ... Petitioner/Appellant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1 The Chief Manager, Bank of India, Chennai Bullion Banking Branch, 6th Floor, Prasanth Real Gold Tower, North Usman Road, Chennai-600017

¶10

2 Federal Bank Ltd., Ernakulam North Branch, Banerji Road, Ernakulam North, Cochin 682018. ... Respondents/Respondents

¶11

Writ Appeal filed under Section 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.29607 of 2018 dated 1.04.2019 on the file of this Court.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Anirudh Krishnan for Mr.Sasank Iyer & Ms.Anisha Chandrakumar For Respondent No.1 : Mr.R.Umasuthan For Respondent No.2 : No appearance *****

¶13

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

¶14

1/4

¶15

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

W.A.No.1674 of 2019

¶18

The instant appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 1.4.2019 in W.P.No. 29607 of 2018.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised various grounds challenging the order passed by the writ Court and contended that the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also stated that the claim made by the respondents is illegal and hit Sec.23 of the Indian Contract Act.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents objected by stating that the writ petition is not maintainable under Sec.226 of Constitution of India. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that pursuant to the order passed in the writ petition, the respondent Bank approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing application in O.A.No.817 of 2019 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal II. Subsequently, the said application was transferred and pending on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal III as O.A. No.1823 of 2019 claiming Rs.29,78,81.300.42. It is also brought to

¶21

the notice of this Court that the tribunal has taken note of the interim order passed by this Court in the aforesaid appeal and no further adjudication taken place in the said claim.

¶22

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

¶23

2/4

¶24

W.A.No.1674 of 2019

¶25

We have carefully perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by holding

¶26

that the petitioner has to seek remedy before the appropriate forum.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the parties have agreed that all the grounds raised in the present appeal will also be agitated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in O.A.No.1823 of 2019. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks liberty to file reply statement as well as counter claim in the said O.A.

¶28

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable and consequently, the writ appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellant to seek remedy before the Debt Recovery tribunal by filing reply statement as well as counter claim with appropriate application

¶29

before the tribunal. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

Speaking/Non Speaking order Index: Yes vaan

¶31

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

¶32

3/4

¶33

W.A.No.1674 of 2019

¶34

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J AND

P.B.BALAJI. J.

vaan

1 The Chief Manager, Bank of India, Chennai Bullion Banking Branch, 6th Floor, Prasanth Real Gold Tower, North Usman Road, Chennai-600017

¶39

2 Federal Bank Ltd., Ernakulam North Branch, Banerji Road, Ernakulam North, Cochin 682018.

¶40

W.A.No.1674 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.11310 of 2019

¶41

Dated: 12.9.2023

¶42

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

¶43

4/4

M/S.Southern Gold Pvt. Ltd. v. the Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Southern Gold Pvt. Ltd. v. the Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Arumugam Vs A.K. Agarwal

N.Penchaliah Vs The Registrar

C.B.Madana Manoharan S/o. C. K. Balakrishna Reddy Vs The Registrar

Union of India, Vs The Registrar

Turbo Engineers (Cbe), Vs Mettur Thermal Power Station-

The Director General Vs M.Rithika