W.P. No.25093 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
W.P. No.25093 of 2022
and W.M.P. No.24044 of 2022
M.Vedhagiri
.. Petitioner
v.
1 The Authorised officer
HDFC Bank,
ITC Building, 2nd Floor,
No. 760, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
2 The Authorized Officer,
HDFC Bank,
Roman House, H.T. Parekh Marg,
169, Backbay Reclamation Church Gate,
Mumbai 400 020.
3 S. Velu
4 V.Radhika .. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.25093 of 2022
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein
to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.08.2022 and for a
consequent direction to permit the petitioner to exhaust the remedy
available to the petitioner in a manner known to law.
For the Petitioner Mr. S. Baskaran
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice) The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.08.2022 and for a consequent direction to permit the petitioner to exhaust the remedy available to the petitioner in a manner known to law.
2. According to the petitioner, he is a tenant in respect of the property in question under the respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.25093 of 2022 also averred that the respondents 3 and 4 availed a loan from the respondents 1 and 2 and defrauded in repaying the loan amount, hence, the bank had initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner submitted that he was unaware of the said loan transaction, hence, he should be given the details of the loan availed by the respondents 3 and 4.
3. The petitioner being a third party, and who is not connected with the loan transaction of the respondents 3 and 4, he cannot be provided with the details of the loan transaction. However, in the event of the petitioner being aggrieved over the proceedings initiated by the respondents 1 and 2 under the SARFAESI Act, it is always open to him to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the following judgments held that remedy open to the aggrieved party in respect of the proceedings initiated under the under the SARFAESI Act is to file an appeal under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.25093 of 2022 section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under the SARFAESI Act is not maintainable.
(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the judgments reported in 2018 (3) Supreme Court Cases 85 [Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. Mathew K.C.], and 2018 (1) Supreme Court Cases 626 [Agarwal Tracom Private Limited Vs. Punjab National Bank and others] 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.
(ii) In a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 05.10.2018 in ICICI Bank Limited v. Umakanta Mohapatra, Civil Appeal Nos.10251 – 10265 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.16758 – 16772 of 2015, the Supreme Court has referred to the decision in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr. vs. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85 and has observed that despite several judgments, including the decision of Mathew K.C., supra, the High Courts continue to entertain matters which arise under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'SARFAESI') and keep granting interim orders in favour of persons who are Non-Performing Assets. Further, the Apex Court held that Writ Petition filed by the aggrieved party without exhausting the statutory remedy available under the SARFAESI Act and Recovery of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.25093 of 2022 Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, is not maintainable.
5. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgments is applicable to the present case
6. Since the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition without exhausting the alternate remedy available to him under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the above referred judgments, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[M.D., ACJ.] [S.M., J.]
19.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Rj
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.25093 of 2022 1 The Authorised officer HDFC Bank, ITC Building, 2nd Floor, No. 760, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2 The Authorized Officer, HDFC Bank, Roman House, H.T. Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation Church Gate, Mumbai 400 020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.25093 of 2022 M.DURAISWAMY, ACJ AND SUNDER MOHAN,J.
Rj W.P. No.25093 of 2022 and W.M.P. No.24044 of 2022 19.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis