Dismissed¶27

P.Syed Ahamed Kabir v. The Authorised Officer

Madras HC14 Feb 2025WP(MD)/1103/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Act Section 13(4) possession notice and auction sale notice quashing sought; Article 226 writ dismissed for want of bona fides; alternative remedy Debts Recovery Tribunal; delay deemed condoned on filing within two weeks; Canara Bank borrower; maintainability objection; discretionary jurisdiction refused; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; no costs; interim application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal; delay deemed condoned if an application is filed within two weeks; no order as to costs; connected interim application (W.M.P.(MD)No.1135 of 2024) also dismissed. ¶27

P.Syed Ahamed Kabir Vs The Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court seeking quashing of the SARFAESI Section 13(4) possession notice and auction sale notice, when the same relief could be sought before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

The Court regarded the Debts Recovery Tribunal as the forum for the same relief claimed in the writ petition, questioning why the petitioner had not approached it instead.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Because a bona fide petitioner would have paid further amounts between 22.01.2024 and the date of the order, which the petitioner did not do after paying Rs.20 lakhs under the conditional order, the case was held not fit for exercise of the Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

Key takeaways

The petition stands dismissed; the petitioner may approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and if an application is filed within two weeks, any delay shall be deemed to have been condoned; no order as to costs; the connected interim application also stands dismissed.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), W.P.(MD) No.1103 of 2024, decided 14.02.2025 by K.R.Shriram, C.J. (order by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) and V.Lakshminarayanan, J. — A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sought certiorari to quash a possession notice dated 05.12.2023 and a consequential auction sale notice dated 16.12.2023 (sale fixed for 23.01.2024) issued by the Authorized Officer, Canara Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioner had received a Section 13(2) demand notice for Rs.90,74,498.29/- (approx. Rs.91 lakhs) on 20.12.2022, lodged the petition only on or about 8th January 2024 challenging the auction notice, and after paying Rs.20 lakhs in compliance with a conditional order dated 22.01.2024 paid nothing further. Holding that a bona fide petitioner would have paid further amounts and that the case was not fit for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court dismissed the writ petition, permitted the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (delay deemed condoned if an application is filed within two weeks), dismissed the connected interim application, and made no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.1103 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.1103 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)No.1135 of 2024

P.Syed Ahamed Kabir

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Circle Office (Canara Bank), 1^st Floor, St.Mary's Campus, East Veli Street, Madurai-625 001.

¶12

2.The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Cumbum Branch, Cumbum-625 516, Theni District. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the possession notice dated 05.12.2023 and the consequential auction sale notice dated 16.12.2023 fixing the date of sale on 23.01.2024 for the subject properties, issued by the 1^st respondent under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Suresh For Respondents : Mr.R.Anandraj, Standing Counsel

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.1103 of 2024

¶17

ORDER

¶18

[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶19

Counsel for petitioner states that petitioner has complied with the conditional order passed by this Court on 22.01.2024 and paid a sum of Rs.20 lakhs. This was in response to the query from the Court as to how this petition is maintainable and why not petitioner approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for the same relief claimed herein.

¶20

2.We find that admittedly, on 20.12.2022 petitioner received demand

¶21

notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, claiming a sum of Rs.90,74,498.29/- (Rs.91 lakhs approximate). Petition has been lodged only on or about 8^th January 2024 challenging the auction notice. Petitioner says that he has paid a sum of Rs.20 lakhs in compliance with the conditional order, but thereafter, no amount has been paid.

¶22

3.In our view, if petitioner was a bona fide person, then, certainly, he

¶23

would have paid further amounts between 22.01.2024 till date, which petitioner has not done. Therefore, this is not the case fit for exercising our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶24

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

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.1103 of 2024

¶27

4.Petition stands dismissed accordingly. Petitioner may, however,

¶28

approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. If an application is filed within a period of two weeks from today, delay, if any, shall be deemed to have been condoned. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim application stands dismissed.

¶29

[K.R.SHRIRAM., C.J.] & [V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J.]

¶30

14.02.2025

¶31

(½)

¶32

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶33

Yuva

¶34

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