Dismissed

Manjula. S v. The Authorized Officer

Madras HC4 Oct 2023WP(MD)/6208/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a bank's sale notice and e-auction. Since a Presiding Officer for the Debts Recovery Tribunal had been appointed, the Court granted time to approach the Tribunal and dismissed the writ.

What did the court decide?

Grant of fifteen days to challenge proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai; dismissal of writ petition.

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

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.6208 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.6208 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.5909 & 7001 of 2023

S.Manjula

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Authorized Officer Indian Bank 762/1, Sri Parvathy Towers 1^st Floor, Near Bus Stand Oddanchatram Dindigul District-624 619

¶11

2.The Branch Manager Indian Bank Oddanchatram Market Branch 762/1, Sri Parvathy Towers 1^st Floor, Near Bus Stand Oddanchatram Dindigul District-624 619

¶12

3.P.Thanthondi ... Respondents

¶13

[R3 is impleaded vide Court order dated 14.09.2023 in W.M.P.(MD) No.6446 of 2023]

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.6208 of 2023

¶17

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the impugned sale notice dated 17.02.2023 issued by the first respondent and the consequential e-auction

¶18

sale conducted by the first respondent on 09.03.2023 and quash the same as illegal.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for Mr.K.Mu.Muthu For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar for R1 & R2 Mr.M.Ramachandran for R3

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

[Order of the Court was made by V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.]

¶22

The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the sale notice dated 17.02.2023 and the consequential e-auction sale conducted on 09.03.2023, by the respondent – Bank.

¶23

2. This writ petition was entertained because there was no Presiding Officer in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. Now, a Presiding Officer has been appointed and the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, is functioning.

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.6208 of 2023

¶27

3. Therefore, we grant fifteen days time from today to the petitioner to challenge the impugned proceedings of the respondent – Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai and to move the Tribunal for interim order, if the petitioner so desires.

¶28

4. With the above liberty, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶29

[S.M.S., J.] [V.L.N., J.]

¶30

04.10.2023

¶31

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

¶32

krk

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.6208 of 2023

¶36

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

¶37

krk

¶38

W.P.(MD) No.6208 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.5909 & 7001 of 2023

¶39

04.10.2023

¶40

_____________ Page 4 of 4_

¶41

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

Manjula. S v. The Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjula. 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

Jamuna.N Vs The District Collector