Madras High Court
M.N.P.Balasubramanian vs The Authorized Officer on 4 August, 2021
W.P(MD)No.13324 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.P(MD)No.13324 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.10306 & 10308 of 2021
M.N.P.Balasubramanian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Authorized Officer,
Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited,
Tiruchirappalli Regional Office
(for Pattukottai Region),
No.18, PL.A. Kanagu Towers,
11th Cross,
Second Floor,
Thillai Nagar,
Tiruchirappalli – 620 018.
2.The Branch Manager,
Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited,
No.72, Sundararaj Chettiyar Complex,
South Kaliamman Kovil Street,
Pattukkottai – 614 601,
Thanjavur District.
3.The Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office Tuticorin,
No.457, Victori Extension Road,
Tuticorin – 628 002. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
W.P(MD)No.13324 of 2021
the impugned possession notice dated 16.06.2021 issued by the
first respondent, quash the same.
For Petitioner : Ms.C.Kayalvizhi
For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
Standing Counsel
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.DURAISWAMY,J.)
The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ
of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned
possession notice, dated 16.06.2021 issued by the first respondent
and to quash the same.
2.The petitioner is challenging the possession notice, dated
16.06.2021 issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(SARFAESI). When the petitioner has got alternate remedy by way
of an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the Writ Petition
filed by him challenging the possession notice cannot be
entertained.
3.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following Judgments
categorically held that the remedy open to a party challenging the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13324 of 2021
proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act is only by way of an
appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
4.In Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and
another Vs. Mathew K.C., reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
“16.The Writ Petition ought to have been entertained
and the interim order granted for the mere asking without
assigning special reasons, and that too without even
granting opportunity to the appellant to contest the
maintainability of the Writ Petition and failure to notice the
subsequent developments in the interregnum. The opinion
of the Division Bench that the counter-affidavit having
subsequently been filed, stay/modification could be sought
of the interim order cannot be considered sufficient
justification to have declined interference.
17.We cannot help but disapprove the approach of
the High Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh
Sugar Industries Limited Vs. Prem Heavy Engineering
Works (P) Limited 1997 (6) SCC 450, observing:-
'32.When a position, in law, is well settled as a result
of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to
judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate
Courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled
decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly
contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial
adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly
deprecate the tendency of the subordinate Courts in not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13324 of 2021
applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical
orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful
and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that
this tendency stops”.
5.In ICICI Bank Limited and others v. Umakanta
Mohapatra and others reported in (2019) 13 SCC 497, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
“2.Despite several judgments of this Court,
including a Judgment by Hon'ble Navin Sinha, J., as
recently on 30.01.2018 in State Bank of Travancore V.
Mathew K.C (2018) 3 SCC 85, the High Courts continue to
entertain matters which arise under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), and keep
granting interim orders in favour of persons who are non-
performing assets (NPAs).
3.The Writ Petition itself was not maintainable, as a
result of which, in view of our recent judgment, which has
followed earlier Judgments of this Court held as follows:-
“17.We cannot help but disapprove the approach of
the High Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh
Sugar Industries Limited Vs. Prem Heavy Engineering
Works (P) Limited 1997 (6) SCC 450, observing:-
'32.When a position, in law, is well settled as a
result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would
amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the
subordinate Courts including the High Courts to ignore
the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13324 of 2021
which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position.
Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we
strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate
Courts in not applying the settled principles and in
passing whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect
of granting wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the
parties. It is time that this tendency stops”.
4.The Writ Petition, in this case, being not
maintainable, obviously, all orders passed must perish,
including the impugned order, which is set aside.
5.The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”
6.In view of the availability of the alternate remedy, the Writ
Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the possession notice,
dated 16.06.2021, cannot be entertained. Accordingly, following the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgments
cited supra, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed, accordingly,
the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[M.D.,J] [S.A.I.,J.]
04.08.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13324 of 2021
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant
concerned.
To
1.The Authorized Officer,
Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited,
Tiruchirappalli Regional Office
(for Pattukottai Region),
No.18, PL.A. Kanagu Towers, 11th Cross,
Second Floor,
Thillai Nagar,
Tiruchirappalli – 620 018.
2.The Branch Manager,
Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited,
No.72, Sundararaj Chettiyar Complex,
South Kaliamman Kovil Street,
Pattukkottai – 614 601,
Thanjavur District.
3.The Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office Tuticorin,
No.457, Victori Extension Road,
Tuticorin – 628 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13324 of 2021
M.DURAISWAMY,J.
and
S.ANANTHI,J.
ps
W.P(MD)No.13324 of 2021
04.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
