Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2324 (MAD)

N. Prabhu v. Authorised Officer

2014-08-04

M.JAICHANDREN, R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned. 2. It is found that, in the present Writ Petition, an issue had arisen, relating to the action initiated by the respondent bank concerned, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 3. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned. We have also perused the records available. Even though various grounds have been raised on behalf of the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the petitioner ought to make his claims, relating to the issues arising for the consideration of this Court, in the Writ Petition, before the appropriate forum, as provided under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. We make it clear that it would be open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds available to them, before the appropriate forum, as per law. 4. It is noted that the Supreme Court, in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 , has made it clear that the scope of interference by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is limited in nature. It has also made it clear that the statutory schemes provided under the specific enactments should not be defeated by the exercise of the writ jurisdiction by this Court. As such, the alternative remedies provided to the petitioner, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, ought not to be interfered with, by this Court, by invoking its writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has reiterated the said position of law, in GM, Sri Siddeshwara Co-op. Bank Ltd. V. Sri Ikbal, reported in (2013) 6 MLJ 571 (SC). 5. In view of the above, the petitioner is permitted to move the appropriate forum provided under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which it would be open to the respondent banks concerned to proceed further, as per the relevant provisions of law, including the provisions contained in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. If the petitioner approaches the appropriate forum in time, as specified in this order, the appropriate forum shall entertain such matters, on merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the same, without raising the issue of delay, in the filing of the matters. We also make it clear that the petitioner, including the respondent bank, shall maintain status quo, for a period of eight weeks, from today. 6. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to dismiss the above Writ Petition, with the observations and directions, incorporated in this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.