M. R. Vasumathi vs Authorized Officer

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 682

DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
M. R. Vasumathi – Appellant
Versus
Authorized Officer – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv. Ms. Archana Goswami, Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, AOR Mr. Vikrant Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, AOR Mr. Rakesh Sharma R., AOR Ms. Promila, AOR

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

THE APPEAL

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.09.2020¹[impugned judgment] passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras²[High Court] in Writ Petition No. 29641 of 2019. Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant (daughter) as well as the son of the deceased guarantor³[G. Ramanujam] , thereby declining to interfere with the measures adopted by the first respondent being the authorised officer of the Indian Bank⁴[secured creditor] under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002⁵[SARFAESI Act], culminating in the auction sale of the secured asset.

2. Appellant questions the legality of the said proceedings, particularly the auction sale held on 11.03.2010, on the ground that the statutory procedure governing such sale was not complied with.

3. The first respondent is the authorised officer of the secured creditor. The second respondent is the auction purchaser, being the successful bidder in the auction sale of the secured asset. The remaining respondents are the other legal heirs/represe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 682

DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHM. R. Vasumathi – AppellantVersusAuthorized Officer – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
M. R. Vasumathi – Appellant
Versus
Authorized Officer – Respondent