SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 14401

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S.S. SUNDAR, C.SARAVANAN, JJ
P.Shanmugam (a mentally retarded person) – Appellant
Versus
The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, R.S.Puram Branch, No.98, Mecricar Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore - 641 002. – Respondent
Writ Petition No.5033 of 2025|W.M.P.No.5584 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. K.V. Babu
For the Respondents:

A litigant with alternate remedies cannot maintain parallel litigation in court.

Headnote:The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 challenging the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 08.02.2025 under the SARFAESI Act, regarding property possession. The petitioner, a mentally retarded person, has challenged the mortgage validity while having alternative remedies in place. The court declined to entertain parallel litigation, dismissing the Writ Petition but allowing the petitioner to pursue the matter before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Result: "Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs."

Table of Content
1. challenge to possession order under sarfaesi act. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's discretion to dismiss for parallel litigation concern. (Para 3)

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.S. SUNDAR, J.)

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, dated 08.02.2025 made in Cr.M.P.No.35863 of 2024 in an application filed under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002, (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act') for taking physical possession of the property.

2. It is not disputed that the property was mortgaged with the respondent Bank and the proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act. As against the sale notice, already an application is filed by the petitioner under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and the same is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner, has also filed a suit for partition of his share as well as for declaration that the mortgage in respect of petitioner's property is not valid. It is the contention of the defendant that the petitioner is a mentally retarded person, and therefore, the formalities required to proceed against the mentally retarded person, was not followed while creating a mortgage.

3. This Court, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit and challenged the sale notice before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. The petitioner having filed the suit questioning the mortgage and having availed the alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal cannot maintain parallel litigation. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

(S.S.S.R., J.) (C.S.N., J.)

13.02.2025 asi To

1. The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, R.S.Puram Branch, No.98, Mecricar Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore - 641 002.

2. The Manager, Indian Bank, R.S.Puram Branch, No.98, Mecricar Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore - 641 002.

S.S. SUNDAR, J.

and C. SARAVANAN, J.

asi Writ Petition No.5033 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.5584 of 2025

13.02.2025

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top