Disposed

Pandiammal.S v. The Authorized Officer

Madras HC4 Oct 2023WP(MD)/12996/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The court held that such notices are not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The petition was disposed of as the petitioner expressed willingness to settle, with no costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner instructed to approach respondents for settlement; no order as to costs.

Pandiammal.S Vs The Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.12996 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 04.10.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.12996 of 2023

S.Pandiammal

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Authorized Officer, Thane Ro, Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited, Formerly Known as Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited, Registered Office, Unit No.601, 6^th Floor, Amithi Building, Agastya Corporate Park, Kamani Junction, Opp. Fire Station, LBS Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070.

¶11

2.The Authorized Officer,

¶12

Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited, Kalpalathika Towers, New No.36, Old No.24, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Ashok Nagar Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024.

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD).No.12996 of 2023

¶16

3.The Manager,

¶17

Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited, No.146/6, Ground Floor, Vinayaga Complex, Perundurai Road, Erode, Erode District. .. Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for records relating to the impugned demand notice dated 29.04.2023 issued by the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Imran Khan For Respondents : Mr.Pethu Rajesh

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.)

¶22

The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to a demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶23

The date of the said demand notice is 29.04.2023. The notice

¶24

issued under Section 13(2) of the Act is not susceptible to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case proceedings are initiated

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD).No.12996 of 2023

¶28

pursuant to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, i.e., any measure taken under Section 13(4) of the Act, the petitioner can approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner reports that his client is ready to settle the matter. It is always open to him to approach the respondents and to settle the same. Since Section 13(2) of the Act is not susceptible to judicial review, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

(S.M.S.,J.) (V.L.N.,J.) 04.10.2023

¶31

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD).No.12996 of 2023

¶35

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. and V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.

¶36

¶37

W.P.(MD).No.12996 of 2023

¶38

04.10.2023

¶39

Page 4 of 4

¶40

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

Pandiammal.S v. The Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandiammal.S v. The Authorized 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

Sathya Mahendran Vs The Prl. Secretary to Govt.

Balakrishnan.K Vs The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-Ii

The Director of Elementary Education Vs S. Kulanthai Theres

N. Mariappan Vs the Director

Kumar Na.K Vs The General Manager

Manjula. S Vs The Authorized Officer