Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, JJ.
A.T. Maideen – Appellant
Versus
The Authorized Officer cum Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Chennai – Respondent
W P. No. 10381 of 2023
Decided On : 02-08-2023
Mandamus - Compensation - Interpretation of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay awarded cost and interest towards compensation amounting to Rs.2,86,32,370/-
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cost had been paid and that the petitioner could recover the same through appropriate application under the Act. The court disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 19 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and the discretion of the Debts Recovery Tribunal or Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal to award cost and interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the discretion to award cost and interest lies with the Debts Recovery Tribunal or Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, and that the same cannot be awarded in separate proceedings.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent to pay cost awarded throughout and interest accrued as claimed towards compensation amounting to Rs.2,86,32,370/- (Rupees Two Crore Eighty Six Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy only) and applicable property tax plus 18 percent interest till the date of realization.)
Sanjay V. Gangapurwala, C.J.
1. We have heard Mr.S.Feroz Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Gowthamanarayanan, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is awarded cost by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The said cost is not paid by the respondent. Learned counsel submits that the respondent may be directed to pay cost awarded throughout and interest accrued, as claimed towards the compensation amount of Rs.2,86,32,370/- (Rupees Two Crore Eighty Six Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy only) and applicable property tax plus 18% interest till date of realisation.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that the cost has been paid.
4. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal has allowed the claim of the petitioner with cost throughout. As per Section 19 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) if the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal or the High Court holds that the possession of secured asset by the secured creditor is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rules and directs the secured creditor to return such secured asset to the concerned borrower, on an application under Section 17 or 17A or appeal under Section 18 or 18A as the case may be, the borrower or such other person shall be entitled to payment of such compensation and costs, as may be determined by such Tribunal or Court of District Judge or Appellate Tribunal or the High Court referred to in Section 18B of the Act.
5. Section 18B of the Act referred to in Section 19 of the Act would be restricted to the borrower residing in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
6. Be that as it may, to award cost and interest, as the case may be, is the discretion of the Debts Recovery Tribunal or Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The same cannot be awarded in a separate proceedings. If the petitioner has been awarded with cost by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner may recover the same as provided under the Act by filing appropriate application.
7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
The discretion to award cost and interest under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 lies with the Debts Recovery Tribunal or Debt ....
The court's decision was based on the pending appeals before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the willingness of the petitioner to deposit the specified amount with the bank.
Non-compliance with Tribunal orders leads to rejection of appeal; writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach Tribunal upon compliance.
Jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot resolve disputed facts, allowing remedy through Debts Recovery Tribunal.
The court upheld that the statutory remedy through the Debts Recovery Tribunal must be pursued rather than adjudicating disputed facts under Article 226.
The jurisdiction under Article 226 does not extend to adjudicating disputed questions of fact in loan recovery matters.
Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed facts under Article 226, directing petitioners to seek redress from the appropriate tribunal.
The petitioner's remedy to contest disputed loan recovery lies with the Debts Recovery Tribunal, not the High Court.
Point of law : Rule 13 of the said Rules of 2002 specifies the quantum of fees to be paid for applying under Section 17 of the Act or under Section 18 thereof. In the table included as a part of sub-....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
