W.P.No.25002 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 16.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.M.DURAISWAMY,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
W.P.No.25002 of 2022
and W.M.P.Nos.23937 & 23940 of 2022
Shri Mancikam Modern Rice Mill
rep by its Proprietor
R.Bakthavachalam
No.1/18, Ammanur,
Periyavenmani Post,
Cheyyur Taluk,
Kanchirpuram District - 630 011. ... Petitioner
Vs.
Canara Bank
rep by its Authorized Officer,
Cheyyr Branch,
No.30, Salt Road, Cheyyur,
Kanchipuram District - 630 011. ... Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling upon the
records of the respondent pertaining to the Sale Notice dated 11.08.2022
and quash the same and further direct the respondent to provide true and
correct accounts for the alleged liabilities of the petitioner in the
Page 1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25002 of 2022
impugned sale notice dated 11.08.2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice) The petitioner, who is the borrower, has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling upon the records of the respondent pertaining to the Sale Notice dated 11.08.2022 and to quash the same and to further direct the respondent to provide true and correct accounts for the alleged liabilities of the petitioner in the impugned Sale Notice dated 11.08.2022.
2.Though the petitioner has got remedy by way of an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition without exhausting the alternate remedy.
3.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. Mathew K.C., reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85 and Agarwal Tracom Private Limited Vs. Punjab National Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25002 of 2022 Bank and others, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 626 held that the aggrieved parties cannot challenge the SARFAESI proceedings directly by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the appeal remedy available to them.
4.In the decision of the Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Limited v. Umakanta Mohapatra, reported in (2019) 13 Supreme Court Cases 497, the Supreme Court has referred to the decision in Mathew K.C. case, referred supra, and has observed that despite several judgments, including the decision of Mathew K.C., cited supra, the High Courts continue to entertain matters which arise under the SARFAESI Act and keep granting interim orders in favour of persons who are Non- Performing Assets. Further, the Supreme Court held that Writ Petition filed by the aggrieved party without exhausting the statutory remedy available under the SARFAESI Act and Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, is not maintainable.
5.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the judgments referred above, Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25002 of 2022 held that a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the aggrieved party challenging the proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act is not maintainable.
6.Since the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition without exhausting the alternate remedy available to them under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cited supra, we are not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Index : Yes/No [M.D., ACJ.] [S.M., J.]
va 16.09.2022
To
The Authorized Officer,
Canara Bank,
Cheyyr Branch,
No.30, Salt Road, Cheyyur,
Kanchipuram District - 630 011.
Page 4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25002 of 2022
M.DURAISWAMY, ACJ.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
va
W.P.No.25002 of 2022
and W.M.P.Nos.23937 & 23940 of 2022
16.09.2022
Page 5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis