Dismissed

Senthil. M v. M/s. Canara Bank

Madras HC29 Aug 2024WP(MD)/20677/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a SARFAESI Act auction order. The Court held that since the petitioner had already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Supreme Court mandates specialized jurisdiction for such challenges, the Writ Petition could not be entertained absent serious legal violations.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition and connected miscellaneous petitions were dismissed; no costs awarded.

Senthil. M Vs M/s. Canara Bank — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.20677 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.20677 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.17538 and 17539 of 2024

¶8

M.Senthil ... Petitioner

¶9

-vs-

¶10

1.Canara Bank, Represented by its Authorized Officer, Thuvakudi Branch, No:D/C1, Developed Plot Estate, Thuvakudi – 620015, Trichy District.

¶11

2.Oxina Land Developers Private Ltd., Represented by its Director Mr.K.Jeyakarna, No.37, Bishope Road, Puthur, Trichy, Trichy District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to impugned order dated 16.08.2024, in Cr.M.P.No.3481 of 2024, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy and quash the same as illegal.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan For 1^st Respondent : Mr.C.Deepak For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.Mahaboob Athiff

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 1 of 4_

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.20677 of 2024

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]

¶18

Mr.C.Deepak, learned counsel takes notice for the 1^st respondent.

¶19

Mr.Mahaboob Athiff, learned counsel takes notice for the 2^nd respondent. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶20

2.The challenge in the Writ Petition is to the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichirappalli, on 16.08.2024, in an application under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, (SARFAESI Act), 2002, at the instance of the bank.

¶21

3.The petitioner has already questioned the sale before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is the claim of the petitioner that no fresh notice was issued to him after the death of the original guarantor, Thiru.K.Manikkam. These questions will have to be necessarily agitated before the jurisdictional Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that the proceedings under Article 226, challenging auctions under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, should not be entertained unless there is a very serious violation of the law or there is any question of jurisdiction. We find that the petitioner will have to necessarily approach the jurisdictional Tribunal, challenging the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 2 of 4_

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.20677 of 2024

¶24

4.It is also stated that the writ petitioner has already moved the Debt Recovery Tribunal, seeking an amendment to include a prayer for setting aside the proceedings before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the said application has been partly allowed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is also seen that the petitioner has moved an application to advance the hearing of the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal from 10.09.2024 to 26.08.2024.

¶25

5.In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed

¶26

[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]

¶27

29.08.2024

¶28

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes Mrn/Sml

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 3 of 4_

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.20677 of 2024

¶31

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶32

Mrn/Sml

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.20677 of 2024

¶34

29.08.2024

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 4 of 4_

Senthil. M v. M/s. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senthil. M v. M/s. Canara Bank

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

P.Selvi Vs The Commissioner

P.Meenkashi Sundaram Vs The Superintending Engineer

Murugesan.v Vs The Branch Manager

Muthukumar Vs The District Collector

Suriyapandi Vs The Director General of Police

A.K.Sakthipriya Vs The Union Ministry of State Finance