Review petition against dismissal of a writ petition challenging forfeiture of auction amount by Bank of Baroda. The court held that per Supreme Court precedent in Agarwal Tracom, forfeiture is a measure reviewable by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(1) SARFAESI Act, and dismissed the review.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Review Application Writ (MD) No.58 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.06.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Review Application Writ (MD) No.58 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD) No.6290 of 2024
Ratchana Rasi
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Bank of Baroda Rep. by its Authorized Officer.
2.Backialakshmi, Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Both the respondents are having address at ROSARB First Floor, Plot No.14, Door No.3,4,5, Sakhtivelammal Street, 10th Street, SS Colony, Madurai – 14.
3.K.Ramamoorthy ... Respondents
Prayer :- Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 114 of C.P.C., praying to review the order dated 20.12.2023 made in W.P.(MD) No.15876 of 2023.
For Petitioner : Mr. RM. Arun Swaminathan
1/4
Review Application Writ (MD) No.58 of 2024
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was delivered by V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.)
The review petition has been instituted to review the order dated 20.12.2023 made in W.P.(MD) No.15876 of 2023.
2 .The writ petition was filed before us in W.P.No.15876 of 2023, challenging the order passed by the Bank of Baroda on 27.06.2023, forfeiting the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- paid by the auction purchaser/writ petitioner/review petitioner. When the matter came up before us, we directed the petitioner to challenge the order of forfeiture before the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition.
3.A review has been filed by the learned counsel Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan pleading that there is no provision to file an appeal as against the order of forfeiture. We find that this position of law is settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Agarwal Tracom Private Limited Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others reported in (2018) 1 SCC 626. The Supreme Court in the said judgment has categorically held that the forfeiture of auction amount is also a measure within the meaning of Section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act and the rules laid thereunder. It held
2/4
Review Application Writ (MD) No.58 of 2024
that the auction purchaser is entitled to challenge the actions of the
secured creditor before the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing a petition under Section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the arguments of Mr.RM.Arunswaminathan that there is no procedure to file an appeal is without any basis.
4.We find no reasons to review the order. We have merely followed
the verdict of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the review application is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition also stands dismissed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (V.L.N.,J.) 14.06.2024
sli Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No To 1.Bank of Baroda Rep. by its Authorized Officer.
2.Backialakshmi, Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Both the respondents are having address at ROSARB First Floor, Plot No.14, Door No.3,4,5, Sakhtivelammal Street, 10th Street, SS Colony, Madurai – 14.
3/4
Review Application Writ (MD) No.58 of 2024
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
sli
Review Application Writ (MD) No.58 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD) No.6290 of 2024
14.06.2024
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the review application against dismissal of a writ petition challenging forfeiture of auction amount was maintainable, given that forfeiture is challengeable before the Debts Recovery Tribunal
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Agarwal Tracom Private Limited Vs. Punjab National Bank and OthersFollowed¶3
(2018) 1 SCC 626 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ratchana Rasi
Bank of Baroda Rep. by its Authorized Officer
Backialakshmi, Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda
K.Ramamoorthy
S.M.Subramaniam
V.Lakshminarayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
