Dismissed

Sheela.P v. The Authorized Officer

Madras HC18 Dec 2023WP(MD)/18320/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that a writ petition challenging a possession notice issued under the SARFAESI Act is not entertainable. The petitioner is directed to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. Petitioner granted 15 days to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Sheela.P Vs The Authorized Officer — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.18320 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.18320 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD).No.13345 of 2022

P.Sheela

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Authorized Officer, Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd, Door No.406, Sakthi Sivam Plaza,

¶11

9^th Cross Street, KK Nagar (East),

¶12

Madurai.

¶13

2.The Branch Manager, Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd, Door No.406, Sakthi Sivam Plaza, Pumping Station Road, 9^th Cross Street, KK Nagar (East), Madurai.

¶14

3.The Branch Manager, HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd, D.No. 96, 3^rd Floor, Alagarkovil Road, Opposite to American College, Tallakulam, Madurai.

¶15

.. Respondents

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD).No.18320 of 2022

¶19

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to possession notice issued by the first respondent dated 07.07.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the first and second respondents not to proceed with the sale and physical possession of the property.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Joseph Jerry For R-1 : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan Standing Counsel For R-3 : Mr.C.Muthu Saravanan

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)

¶23

The possession notice dated 07.07.2022 issued by the first respondent is sought to be quashed in the present Writ proceedings.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner is ready to settle the issues by co-ordinating with the third respondent HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited.

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD).No.18320 of 2022

¶28

It is for the petitioner to negotiate with the respondents and settle

¶29

the issues. However, the challenge made in the present Writ Petition is the possession notice issued by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act. Thus, the Writ Petition is not entertainable and the petitioner has to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Granting 15 days' time to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶30

(S.M.S.,J.) (L.V.G.,J.) 18.12.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD).No.18320 of 2022

¶34

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI,J.

¶35

¶36

W.P.(MD).No.18320 of 2022

¶37

18.12.2023

¶38

Page 4 of 4

¶39

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

Sheela.P v. The Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheela.P 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

Arunachalam Vs Kovilpillai Pandian

Thirunavukarasu Vs C. Arumugam

S. Senthil Kumar Vs Mrs.Diravida Mani Nallathambi

D.Indira. Vs The Authorized Officer

Sudha .S Vs The Authorized Officer

Ariharan Vs The District Collector