Madras High Court
Ramkumar vs Punjab And Sind Bank on 6 August, 2024
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
W.P.No.21015 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.D.KRISHNAKUMAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.No.21015 of 2024
RAMKUMAR, PROPRIETOR
SHRI RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,
NO.72, PETTAIYAN CHATRAM,
VAZHUDAVUR ROAD, THATTANCHAVADI,
PONDICHERRY-605 009. .. Petitioner
Vs
1. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK
(A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING)
ZONAL OFFICE, NO.770-A, FIRST FLOOR,
SPENCER TOWER, ANNA SALAI,
CHENNAI-600 002
2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
PUNJAB AND SIND BANK,
NO.66, ANNA SALAI,
PUDUCHERRY-605 001. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the
2nd respondent in E-auction Sale notice for sale of immovable
property dated 2.7.2024 and quash the same.
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21015 of 2024
For the Petitioner : Mr.L.Murali Krishnan
For the Respondents : Mr.M.Sridhar
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made
by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
Assailing the e-auction sale notice dated 2.7.2024, the
petitioner, who is a borrower, has filed this writ petition.
2. On the basis of the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the auction notice does not reveal issuance of
notice giving 30 days time to the borrower to redeem the
property, this court, vide order dated 26.7.2024, had granted an
order of interim stay.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing today,
learned counsel for the respondents, on the basis of the counter
affidavit filed, submitted that the e-auction notice dated 2.7.2024
was despatched on 5.7.2024 and the same was served on the
petitioner on 6.7.2024. The e-auction is scheduled on 9.8.2024
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and, therefore, 30 days time has been given to the borrower to
redeem the property. He prayed for dismissal of the writ
petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strongly refuted the
aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the
respondents and prayed for sympathetic consideration of the plea
of the petitioner that the default in repayment was owing to the
Covid-19 pandemic.
5. It is beyond any cavil that as against the e-auction sale
notice, which is impugned in this writ petition, the petitioner has
an efficacious alternative remedy to prefer an appeal before the
Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of The Authorized Officer,
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. Mathew K.C., reported
in (2018) 3 SCC 85 and Agarwal Tracom Private Limited Vs.
Punjab National Bank and others, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 626
held that the aggrieved parties cannot challenge the proceedings
initiated under the SARFAESI Act directly by filing a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting
the appeal remedy available to them.
7. In ICICI Bank Limited v. Umakanta Mohapatra, reported
in 2018 SCC Online SC 2349, the Supreme Court has referred to
the decision in Mathew K.C. case, referred supra, 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 SARFAESI Act and keep granting
interim orders in favour of persons whose accounts are declared
as Non-Performing Assets. Further, the Supreme Court held that
writ petition filed by the aggrieved party without exhausting the
statutory remedy available under the SARFAESI Act is not
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
maintainable.
8. Very recently, the Apex Court in the case of South Indian
Bank Ltd and others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and another,
MANU/SC/0400/2023, deprecated the practice adopted by the
High Courts whereby the writ petitions are being entertained as
against proceedings initiated by the secured creditor under
SARFAESI Act and further held that when the statute prescribes a
particular mode, an attempt to circumvent should not be
encouraged by the writ Court.
9. In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to
interfere with the impugned e-auction sale notice and the
petitioner is relegated to the remedy of preferring appeal against
the said notice.
10. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.22973 of 2024
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is closed.
11. The Registry is directed to return the original
documents, if any filed along with the writ petition, to learned
counsel for the petitioner, after substituting the same with the
photocopies.
(D.K.K., ACJ.) (P.B.B, J.)
06.08.2024
Index : Yes/No
NC : Yes/No
Note to Registry:
Issue order copy today (6.8.2024)
sasi
To:
1. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK
(A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING)
ZONAL OFFICE, NO.770-A, FIRST FLOOR,
SPENCER TOWER, ANNA SALAI,
CHENNAI-600 002
2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
PUNJAB AND SIND BANK,
NO.66, ANNA SALAI,
PUDUCHERRY-605 001.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.B.BALAJI, J.
(sasi)
06.08.2024
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
