Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. SUBRAMANIAN, L. VICTORIA GOWRI, JJ.
K.C.A. Chidambaram – Appellant
Versus
The Manager/authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Sattur Branch, Sattur, Virudhunagar & Another – Respondents
W.P.(MD) No. 12765 of 2023 & W.M.P (MD) Nos. 10760 & 10761 of 2023
Decided On : 01-06-2023
Abuse of Process - Writ Petition - The court held that invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the circumstances of a pending SARFAESI Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal would amount to an abuse of process of court, and therefore refused to entertain the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the sale notice issued by the respondent bank and forbear the bank from proceeding with the sale of the petitioner's property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petition was not maintainable as the sale certificate had been challenged before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and it was open to the petitioner to raise defenses in that forum.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should entertain the writ petition in light of the pending SARFAESI Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the circumstances of a pending SARFAESI Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal would amount to an abuse of process of court.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the 1st respondent''s impugned sale notice dated 02.02.2023 and quash the same as illegal and forbearing the 1st respondent Bank, their men, agents proceeding further for sale of the petitioner''s house property.)
R. Subramanian, J.
1. With the consent of both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.
2. Considering the nature of the relief, notice to the private respondent is deemed unnecessary.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would make a very magnanimous offer to the effect that the petitioner is ready to pay the entire amount outstanding.
4. Mr.R.Pandivel, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent – bank would submit that the sale has been held and the sale certificate has also been issued. He would also add that the sale certificate has been challenged before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in S.A.No.86 of 2023, The auction purchaser is also a party to the said proceedings. Therefore, according to the learned Standing Counsel, the writ petition itself is not maintainable and is an abuse of process of law.
5. We are inclined to agree with the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent – bank. Once the SARFAESI Application has been filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal challenging the sale certificate, it is open to the petitioner to take all defences open to the debtor before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Invocation of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the said circumstances would amount to abuse of process of Court. Hence, we do not see any reason to entertain this writ petition. We leave it open to the petitioner to urge all contentions before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the pending S.A.No.86 of 2023.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
AI
Invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the circumstances of a pending SARFAESI Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal would amount to an abuse of process of c....
Failure to comply with the provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the availability of an alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal rendered the writ petition not mainta....
Writ petition under Article 226 not maintainable against SARFAESI sale notice due to alternate remedy under Section 17 before DRT.
The court's intervention due to the absence of a Judicial Member in the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the grant of interim protection to the petitioner based on specific payment conditions.
though existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 despite the availability of an alternative remedy, based on the peculiar facts of the case....
Though existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional....
A writ petition is not maintainable against proceedings or sale notices initiated under the SARFAESI Act, as the aggrieved party must exhaust alternative statutory remedies before the Debt Recovery T....
The High Court will not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when an effective alternative statutory remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act, especially when the petitioner is already a party to ....
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
