Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 360 (MAD)

N. Chinnammal v. Authorised Officer

2014-02-14

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, M.JAICHANDREN

body2014
JUDGMENT M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard Mr. G.Jeremiah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.S.Sethuraman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent bank. 2. The present writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned possession notice issued by the first respondent bank, under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, read with Rule 8 of the Securities Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and the subsequent sale notice, dated 2.12.2013. 3. 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 present 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 him, 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 scheme 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 a recent decision, in GM, Sri Siddeshware Co-op.Bank Ltd. vs. Sri Ikbal, reported in (2013) 6 MLJ 571 (SC). 5. The Supreme Court has reiterated the said position of law, in a recent decision, in GM, Sri Siddeshware Co-op.Bank Ltd. vs. 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 four weeks from today, failing which, it would be open to the respondent bank to proceed further, as per the relevant provisions of law, including the provisions contained in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of the 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 matter, on merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the same, without raising the issue of delay, in filing of the matter. We also make it clear that the petitioner, including the respondent bank, shall maintain status quo, for a period four weeks from today. 6. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to dismiss the present writ petition, with the observations and directions, incorporated in this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.