Madras High Court
M.Vedhagiri vs Unknown on 19 September, 2022
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
