Madras High Court
M/S Sunaichandran Spintex (P) Ltd vs The Authorized Officer on 6 October, 2021
W.P(MD)No.3860 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
W.P(MD)No.3860 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.3094, 3095 and 8762 of 2021
M/s Sunaichandran Spintex (P) Ltd.,
D.No.55 Y/1B, Naidu South Street,
Chettiarpatti-626 122,
Rajapalayam Taluk,
Virudhunagar District,
represented by its Director
T.Jeyakumar. ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Authorized Officer,
Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment
Corporation Ltd., (TIIC),
No.98c4, 2nd floor,
Chairman Shanmugan nadar road,
Sivakasi-626, 123. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for all the records relating
to the sale notice dated 13.01.2021 issued by the respondent and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
for Mr.R.Niresh Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Suresh
for M/s Aiyar & Dolia
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
W.P(MD)No.3860 of 2021
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 calling for all the records relating to the sale notice
dated 13.01.2021 and quash the same.
2. The petitioner, who is the borrower, has filed the above Writ
Petition directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
without exhausting the alternate remedy available to them under
Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
The Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments held that
the writ petition filed by the aggrieved party challenging the
proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, is not maintainable.
3. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.3860 of 2021
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
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. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.3860 of 2021
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
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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.3860 of 2021
5. In the case on hand, the petitioner has filed the Writ
Petition without exhausting the alternate remedy available to them
under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery
Tribunal.
6. In view of the same, following the ratio laid down by the
Honourable Supreme Court of India cited supra, the Writ Petition
filed by the borrower challenging the sale notice is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the Writ Petitiion is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. It is open
to the petitioner to canvass the interim order passed by the Division
Bench of this Court on 01.03.2021 at the time of presenting the
appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
[M.D.,J] [K.M.S.,J.]
06.10.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
SSL
Note:
Issue order copy on 07.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.3860 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
The Authorized Officer,
Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment
Corporation Ltd., (TIIC),
No.98c4, 2nd floor,
Chairman Shanmugan nadar road,
Sivakasi-626, 123.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.3860 of 2021
M.DURAISWAMY,J.
and
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
SSL
W.P(MD)No.3860 of 2021
06.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
