Madras High Court
M/S.Edge Qube Trading Private vs The Authorized Officer on 22 November, 2021
W.P.No.24862 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.11.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.P.No.24862 of 2021 & WMP.No.26164 of 2021
M/s.Edge Qube Trading Private
Limited, rep.by its Director
Mrs.Shilpa Darshan Kumar .. Petitioner
Vs
The Authorized Officer, Religere
Finvest Limited, Bascon IT Park,
12th Floor, New No.10/2, Old No.56L,
Venkat Narayana Road, T.Nagar,
Chennai-17. .. Respondent
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India for
a Writ of Declaration to declare that the claim of the respondent NFBC
is barred by limitation vide application of Article 137 of the Limitation
Act prescribing a period of three years for any Special Act read with
Section 36 of the SARFAESI Act and that the respondent NFBC cannot
issue a Section 13(4) possession notice over a property already in
their possession and there is no dichotomy in either symbolic/physical
possession.
___________
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24862 of 2021
For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Gurumurthy
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by
the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
The writ petition has been filed to challenge the notice under
Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. It is in
reference to Article 137 of the Limitation Act.
2. According to the petitioner, the notice under Section 13(4)
is hit by the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act and
deserves to be quashed. It is mainly on the ground that the
provisions of the Limitation Act would apply for notice under Section
13(4) of the Act of 2002, being a Special Act. In view of the above,
the petitioner was not required to invoke Section 17 of the Act of
2002 and the writ petition is maintainable. The period of limitation
has been taken from the date the petitioner was declared to be a
non performing asset.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24862 of 2021
3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
4. It is settled law that the remedy against the notice under
Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002 is available under Section 17 of the
said Act. An appeal can be maintained to challenge the notice under
Section 13(4) on all the available grounds taken by the petitioner.
We do not find any exceptional ground so as to entertain this writ
petition despite availability of a statutory remedy. It is more so
when the Apex Court in the judgments in United Bank of India v.
Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110 and State Bank of
Travancore v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85 has categorically
observed that Sarfaesi Act is a complete code in itself and when the
remedy under Section 17 of the Act is available before the Tribunal,
considering the statutory scheme, the object and purpose of the
legislation, a writ petition challenging the notice under Section
13(4) of the Act ought not to be entertained.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24862 of 2021
5. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this
writ petition. Rather, it is dismissed, however, with liberty to the
petitioner to file an appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the
concerned Debts Recovery Tribunal, if the petitioner so wishes. The
dismissal of this writ petition would not come in the way of the
petitioner for it. Consequently, the connected WMP is also
dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
22.11.2021
RS
To:
The Authorized Officer, Religere
Finvest Limited, Bascon IT Park,
12th Floor, New No.10/2, Old No.56L,
Venkat Narayana Road, T.Nagar,
Chennai-17.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24862 of 2021
M.N.BHANDARI, ACJ
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.
(RS)
W.P.No.24862 of 2021&
WMP.No.26164 of 2021
22.11.2021
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
