Madras High Court
V.Balasubramanian vs The Authorized Officer / Regional ... on 21 September, 2022
W.P.(MD) No.14608 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.P.(MD)No.14608 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2013
V.Balasubramanian ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Authorized Officer / Regional Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Regional Office, Tiruchirappalli,
Tiruchirappalli District.
2.K.Ganesan ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pursuant to the impugned notice
issued by the 1st respondent herein under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act,
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.14608 of 2013
dated 23.03.2013 to the 2nd respondent herein which is published in Tamil Daily
viz., 'Dina Thandhi' dated 23.03.2013 contrary to the judgment and decree made
in O.S.No.4 of 2009, dated 28.11.2012, on the file of the District Court,
Thanjavur, quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Bharathy Kannan
For R1 : Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan
For R2 : No Appearance
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by R.MAHADEVAN, J.]
Challenging the possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of the
SARFAESI Act, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent, who is the owner
of the mortgaged property with the 1st respondent Bank, entered into an
agreement of sale with the petitioner on 02.07.2008. According to the petitioner,
even at the time of entering into the abovesaid sale agreement, the 2 nd respondent
agreed to discharge the loan obtained by him from the 1st respondent Bank, but
he did not choose to do so, nor executed the sale deed as per the agreement of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.14608 of 2013
sale. Hence, the petitioner, as plaintiff, filed a suit for specific performance
against the 2nd respondent in O.S.No.4 of 2009, on the file of the District Court,
Thiruvarur and the trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 28.11.2011,
decreed the said suit. As per the decree passed in the said suit, the petitioner also
deposited the balance sale consideration. As against the decree passed in the
suit, the 2nd respondent has filed an appeal in A.S.No.836 of 2012, which is
pending before this Court.
3.It is the grievance of the petitioner that contrary to the judgment and
decree of the Civil Court, the 1st respondent has issued the impugned notice.
Hence, this Writ Petition.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the
1st respondent. There is no appearance for the 2nd respondent.
5.Admittedly, the 1st respondent Bank is not a party to the abovesaid
suit and against the decree passed in the suit, appeal is pending before this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.14608 of 2013
in A.S.No.836 of 2012. Thus, the petitioner has to work out his remedy in the
pending appeal.
6.With the above observation, this Writ Petition is closed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[R.M.D., J.] & [J.S.N.P., J.]
21.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Myr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.14608 of 2013
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
Myr
W.P.(MD)No.14608 of 2013
21.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
