A writ petition is not maintainable when an appeal is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the petitioner has not exhausted the remedies available before the Tribunal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.01.2022

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

W.P.No.387 of 2022

M/s.Saj Roofing Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,

rep. by its Director S.Cletus,

Old No.13/116-B, New No.8,

Golden Garden, Palappampatti,

Periyakottai Pirivu, Udumalpet,

Tiruppur District.

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1. M/s.Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd.,

rep. by its Authorised Officer,

Udumalpet Branch,

D.No.2, Anusham Nagar,

Anusham Theatre Back Side,

Udumalpet – 642 126.

2. M/s.Sri Ram Tubes,

Having office at S.F.No.255/B1, Ponneri,

Kottamangalam Post,

Udumalpet – 642 201.

.. Respondents

Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the first

respondent bank from proceeding further with its Recovery

Proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, in respect of Item No.6

property mentioned in its Auction Sale Notice dated 8.10.2011,

viz., land of 2.54 acres in S.F.No.178/2 with buildings in

Kannamanaickanur village, Udumalpet Taluk, Tiruppur District,

pending disposal of I.A.No.3585 in SA No.674 of 2021 on the file

of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

For the Petitioner

: Mr.A.E. Ravi Chandran

For the Respondents

: Mr.N.Dilip Kumar

for respondent No.1

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by

the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)

The writ petition has been filed to seek a direction on the

respondent bank not to proceed further in reference to the

auction sale notice dated 8.10.2021 to sell the property at a

lower price than was offered by the person brought by the

petitioner.

2. The petitioner has taken the remedy of appeal before the

Debts Recovery Tribunal and made an application for interim

order, but the next date of hearing has been fixed by the Debts

Recovery Tribunal as 10.2.2022. According to the petitioner,

when the property sought to be auctioned may fetch a price of

Rs.2.50 crore, it should not be sold by the respondent bank for

Rs.2.10 crore and, therefore, the writ petition has been filed

to forbear the respondent bank from proceeding further pursuant

to the auction sale notice.

3. We have considered the submission made by the petitioner

and find that the auction sale notice dated 8.10.2021 has

already been challenged by the petitioner by making an appeal

before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Thus, for the same subject

matter, the writ petition would not be maintainable and, that

too, to seek an interim order while the appeal is pending before

the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is also a fact that an

application was filed by the petitioner to expedite the hearing,

which was allowed by advancing the date of hearing. Accordingly,

the matter was heard by the Tribunal and thereupon adjourned to

10.2.2022. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner neither raised

an objection to the date fixed, nor prayed for interim order on

the grounds urged before us.

4. Apart from the aforesaid, simultaneous proceedings before

the High Court is not permissible. In fact, if the respondent

bank is proceeding further in the matter, the petitioner should

have pressed the application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal

and if a long date has been given, the petitioner could have

filed an application for fixing an early date, as was done by

the petitioner earlier. But, instead of doing that, a writ

petition has been filed simultaneously, though not maintainable,

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

pending appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal seeking

identical relief.

5. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.

However, the petitioner would not be precluded to avail the

remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal on all the issues

urged before this court.

There will be no order as to costs. Conse