Disposed

S.Meena, v. The Arcil

Madras HC18 Jul 2023WP/10650/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 10650 of 2018 dismissed a petition challenging an order refusing to recall a recovery certificate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the petitioner should avail remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and refused to entertain the writ petition, though it granted a temporary stay for ten days.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; temporary stay on respondents' actions for ten days granted.

S.Meena, Vs The Arcil — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.10650 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.07.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

W.P.No.10650 of 2018

S.Meena

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The ARCIL Rep. by its Managing Director The Ruby, 10^th Floor, No.29 Senapathi Bapath Marg

¶13

Dadar West, Mumbai – 28.

¶14

The Commissioner of Police Veppery, Chennai.

¶15

.. Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of all the loan transactions of the petitioner with the first respondent and to quash the order dated 03.03.2018 made by the Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Allikulam in M.P.No.7724 of 2016 in Crl.M.P.No.805 of 2016 and consequently set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.805 of 2016 dated 05.03.2016 and direct the first respondent not to proceed against the petitioner based on the loan transaction with the first respondent as the matter is subjudice and the document dated 27.09.2010 “The Resolution Plan and Broad Terms and Conditions” relied upon by the first respondent has been impounded and declared as inadmissible in evidence due non stamping by the Senior Sub-Registrar Peenya, Bangalore.

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.10650 of 2018

¶20

For the Petitioner : Mr.P.Munusamy for Mr.P.Manikandan For the Respondents : Mr.E.Om Prakash Senior Counsel for Mr.Chethan Sagar for R1

¶21

Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader for R2

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard Mr.P.Munusamy, learned counsel appearing for

¶24

Mr.P.Manikandan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.E.Om Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.Chethan Sagar, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader for the second respondent.

¶25

The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the

¶26

Authority, thereby refusing to recall the order passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 .

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.10650 of 2018

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, there are documents on record to show that the entire loan amount is repaid. The two properties are sold by the Bank. The amount has been realised pursuant to the orders of this Court and a sum of Rs.100 lakhs (Rs. One Crore) is also deposited by the petitioner. The Hospital is running in the said premises. The action of the first respondent / ARCIL is erroneous and illegal.

¶31

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the petitioner is abusing the process of law. Initially, the petitioner set-up a tenant, who had challenged the auction under Section 14 of the Act by filing a Securitisation Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The same was dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand). It was dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal holding that the said tenant is set-up by the mortgagor. It is further submitted that the amount claimed by the respondent is as per the decree of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, passed in the order dated 31.10.2017 in O.A.No.288 of 2014. Amount of

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.10650 of 2018

¶35

Rs.33,74,74,361/- (Rs. Thirty Three Crores Seventy Four Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty One) with further interest, as detailed in paragraph 10(a) of the said order, is due and payable by the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that only one property is sold.

¶36

We have considered the submissions of the parties.

¶37

It appears that this Court, while passing the ad interim order, was impressed by the fact that the petitioner is running a Hospital and as such, interim protection was granted. The factum of the petitioner setting-up a tenant and the alleged tenant assailing the order under Section 14 was not brought before this Court. The Recovery Certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the order dated 31.10.2017 in O.A.No.288 of 2014 was also not brought to the notice of this Court. Moreover, the order under Section 14 can be assailed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.10650 of 2018

¶41

For all the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to entertain

¶42

the present writ petition. The writ petition, as such, is disposed of. If at all the petitioner has any remedy available under law, then it is for the petitioner to avail the same, as permissible under law.

¶43

For a period of ten days from today (i.e., 18.07.2023), the first respondent may not proceed further. However, after the lapse of ten days, the said protection would come to an end.

¶44

There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.12593, 12594 & 33094 of 2018 are closed.

¶45

(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.) 18.07.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶46

drm

¶47

¶48

The Commissioner of Police Veppery, Chennai.

¶49

Page 5 of 6

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.No.10650 of 2018

¶52

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.

(drm)

W.P.No.10650 of 2018

18.07.2023

Page 6 of 6

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

S.Meena, v. The Arcil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Meena, v. The Arcil

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

R.Ramesh Vs P.Murugan

Tamilnadu Recognized Private Vs the State of Tamilnadu

N.Selvaraj Vs Union of India

L.Mary Vs The District Collector

K.K.Ramesh Vs The Government of India

B.Satheesh Vs the Regional Director