Disposed

M/s.Mangal Royal Jewels v. Canara Bank

Madras HC6 Jul 2023WP/4212/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of a DRT recovery certificate. It held that substantive remedies exist under the DRT Act and the petitioners failed to exhaust them. The court directed the petitioners to pursue alternative legal remedies.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petition disposed of with liberty to avail alternate remedies under the DRT Act.

M/s.Mangal Royal Jewels Vs Canara Bank — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP No.4212 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.07.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

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

¶8

WP No.4212 of 2023

¶9

and WMP Nos. 4250, 5696, 5693, 5695, 5692, 5694 and 9047 of 2023

¶10

M/s.Mangal Royal Jewels Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, Mr.Ajit Jain, No.401, Sheela Niwas, Ramabai Chemburkar Marg, Vile Parle, Mumbai 400 057.

¶11

M/s.Mangal Bullion Pvt. Ltd., Rep .by its Authorized Signatory, Mr.Ajit Jain, No.301, 3rd Floor, Konark Royal, Ramabai Chemburkar Marg, Vile Parle, Mumbai 400 057.

¶12

.. Petitioners

¶13

-vs-

¶14

Canara Bank, Ambattur SME Branch, Padi, Chennai 600 050.

¶15

The Debt Recovery Tribunal-III,

¶16

6th Floor, Additional Office Building, Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006.

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

WP No.4212 of 2023

¶20

The Joint Director,

¶21

Directorate of Enforcement, O/o.Jt. Director, Chennai Zonal Office, 2nd and 3rd Floor, Murugesan Naicker Complex, 84, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006.

¶22

.. Respondents

¶23

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in and connected with order made in Original Application in O.A.No.424 of 2014 dated 11.07.2019 on the file of 2nd respondent and the recovery certificate emanating therefrom in D.R.C.No.392 of 2019 dated 17.12.2019, quash the same qua these petitioners as the order was passed imposing the entire loan liability on the petitioners being without authority of law and in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶24

For the Petitioners : Mr.C.Mani Shankar Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Krishnanandh For the Respondents : Mr.P.Raghunathan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co. for R-1 : R-2 Tribunal : Mr.N.Ramesh for R-3 * * * * *

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

WP No.4212 of 2023

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶30

We have heard Mr.C.Manishankar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners.

¶31

The learned senior counsel submits that the recovery certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) is in the teeth of the order passed by this Court in CMA Nos.1581 and 1582 of 2017 dated 29.08.2019 and upheld by the Apex Court. According to the learned senior counsel, the liability of the present petitioners does not arise. The petitioners were directed to give a bank guarantee which has already been furnished.

¶32

We have heard Mr.P.Raghunathan, learned counsel for the respondent bank.

¶33

In the proceedings before the Presiding Officer, DRT, the present petitioners remained absent and the matter proceeded in the absence of the present petitioners and the order is passed.

¶34

Page 3 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

WP No.4212 of 2023

¶37

Substantive remedies are provided to the petitioners under

¶38

the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The petitioners have multifarious remedies available. In view of the fact that substantive remedies are available to the petitioners, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the contentions raised in the present petition.

¶39

We dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners

¶40

to avail the alternate remedies as may be permissible under law. In that event, all the contentions are kept open.

¶41

The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the question of delay would arise. It is for the petitioners to raise a plea of Section 14 of the Limitation Act as may be permissible under law.

¶42

There will be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶43

(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.) 06.07.2023

¶44

Index : yes/no

¶45

Page 4 of 6

¶46

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

¶47

WP No.4212 of 2023

¶48

Neutral Citation : Yes/No sra

¶49

To:

¶50

Canara Bank, Ambattur SME Branch, Padi, Chennai 600 050.

¶51

The Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, 6th Floor, Additional Office Building, Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006.

¶52

The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, O/o.Jt. Director, Chennai Zonal Office, 2nd and 3rd Floor, Murugesan Naicker Complex, 84, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006.

¶53

Page 5 of 6

¶54

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

¶55

WP No.4212 of 2023

¶56

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

(sra)

WP No.4212 of 2023

06.07.2023

Page 6 of 6

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

M/s.Mangal Royal Jewels v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Mangal Royal Jewels v. Canara Bank

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

K.Ranganathan Vs Principal Secretary

The Project Director Vs Manonmani

The Project Director Vs T.V. Amshalingam

M.Thangavel Vs R.Thirtham

Indira Vs The Special Tahsildhar

P.Sheakespeare Vs the District Collector