Dismissed

Suseela Devi.T v. The Managing Director cum Chief Executive Officer

Madras HC20 Jan 2023WP(MD)/1073/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 seeking restoration of non-mortgaged property. The Court held that as an ex-parte order was passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and facts were disputed, the petitioner must pursue remedies before said Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to work out remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. No costs.

Suseela Devi.T Vs The Managing Director cum Chief… — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.1073 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶8

W.P.(MD) No.1073 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)No.1003 of 2023

T.Suseela Devi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Managing Director cum Chief Executive Officer, Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., CSB Bhavan, P.B.No.502, St. Mary's College Road, Thrissur – 680 020, Kerala State.

¶13

2.The Authorised Officer, CSB Bank Ltd., Formerly Catholic Syrian Bank, Asset Recovery Branch, 2^nd Floor, Shiva Complex, No.54, Old Post Office Road, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶14

Page 1 of 7

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.1073 of 2023

¶17

3.The Branch Manager, Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Near Perumal Koil, Perumal Koil Street, Thoothukudi – 628 002, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to restore the non-mortgaged property of the petitioner situated at Door No.2A3, 1st Floor, 6^th Street, Krishnarajapuram, Thoothukudi - 628 002 to an extent of 2000 sq.ft. with the petitioner, based on the petitioner's representation dated 05.01.2023, within the stipulated period by this Hon'ble Court.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Velavadhas

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.R.Pandivel, Standing Counsel

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

[Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.]

¶23

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,

¶24

directing the respondents to restore the non-mortgaged property of the petitioner situated at Door No.2A3, 1st Floor, 6^th Street, Krishnarajapuram, Thoothukudi -

¶25

Page 2 of 7

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.1073 of 2023

¶28

628 002 to an extent of 2000 sq.ft. with the petitioner, based on the petitioner's representation dated 05.01.2023, within a time frame.

¶29

2. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at that admission stage itself.

¶30

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents bank has filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, in which, the petitioner was set ex-parte. He further submitted that the respondents bank has no authority to initiate SARFAESI proceedings against the petitioner and hence, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer.

¶31

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents – Bank submitted that the respondent has filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai for recovery of money as against the petitioner and an ex-parte order was passed in the said appeal. Subsequently, the respondents bank has initiated

¶32

Page 3 of 7

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.1073 of 2023

¶35

proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and take possession of the subject property in question. He further submitted that the petitioner without challenging the said ex-parte order, now filed this Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and the petitioner can seek his remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai.

¶36

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶37

6. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the respondents bank has filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai and an ex-parte order was passed in the said appeal. According to the learned counsel for the respondents bank, the subject property has already been mortgaged by the petitioner and therefore, the relief as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the said fact. This Court will not go into the disputed facts and hence, we are not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition.

¶38

_____________ Page 4 of 7_

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.1073 of 2023

¶42

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, if he so advised. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

[D.K.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 20.01.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsm

¶44

_____________ Page 5 of 7_

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD) No.1073 of 2023

¶47

¶48

1.The Managing Director cum Chief Executive Officer, Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., CSB Bhavan, P.B.No.502, St. Mary's College Road, Thrissur – 680 020, Kerala State.

¶49

2.The Authorised Officer, CSB Bank Ltd., Formerly Catholic Syrian Bank, Asset Recovery Branch, 2^nd Floor, Shiva Complex, No.54, Old Post Office Road, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶50

3.The Branch Manager, Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Near Perumal Koil, Perumal Koil Street, Thoothukudi – 628 002, Thoothukudi District.

¶51

Page 6 of 7

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.(MD) No.1073 of 2023

¶54

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

¶55

vsm

¶56

W.P.(MD)No.1073 of 2023

¶57

20.01.2023

¶58

_____________ Page 7 of 7_

¶59

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

Suseela Devi.T v. The Managing Director cum Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suseela Devi.T v. The Managing Director cum Chief Executive 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

Fathi Muthu Zahara, Vs M/s. Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited

Pandiyammal Vs The Authorized Officer

Siraimeettan Vs The District Collector

Saravanan.N Vs The Authorized Officer

Sathishkumar.R Vs The Commissioner

Balakrishnan.v Vs The District Collector