Madras High Court
Mohamed Eakieem vs Authorised Officer on 9 March, 2020
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar, C.Saravanan
W.P.(MD) No.4908 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.03.2020
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD)No.4908 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.4272 and 4273 of 2020
Mohamed Eakieem ... Petitioner
Vs.
Authorised Officer,
Punjab National Bank,
Madurai Main Branch,
284-285, West Masi Street,
Madurai – 625 001. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the
impugned sale notice dated 20.02.2020 issued by the respondent Authorised
Officer, Punjab National Bank, Madurai Main Branch, quash the same and
consequently directing the respondent to adhere the statutory procedure laid
down in the SARFAESI Act and Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
For Petitioner : Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan
For Respondents : Mr.Veera Pandian for VAST Law
Associates
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.4908 of 2020
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J. ) This writ petition is filed challenging the sale notice dated 20.02.2020 issued by the Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, Madurai main branch. The petitioner admits that he availed the loan on behalf of the Moguls Educational and Charitable Trust and that the said Trust is running Engineering Colleges and other Educational Institutions. The loan account was classified as NPA and it is admitted that the demand notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was also issued on 25.04.2018.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that he approached the bank and submitted a representation raising certain objections to the said notice. It is the case of the petitioner that without sending any reply or responding to the objection of the petitioner, the respondent bank has proceeded to take symbolic possession under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, by issuing notices dated 08.02.2019 and 11.02.2019. Stating that the petitioner, with a view to settle the entire dues, paid a sum of Rs.18,45,000/- after the possession notice, and that the bank had not regularised the account as promised, the petitioner has now challenged the sale notice issued on 20.02.2020, which was communicated to the petitioner by message. http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD) No.4908 of 2020
3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, submitted that the notice dated 20.02.2020 is only an intimation and no advertisement of sale has been made pursuant to the sale notice. It is the case of the respondent that the bank has taken a decision to proceed with the sale as substantial payment has not come from the petitioner, who has failed to discharge the loan. Though it is admitted that the notice dated 20.02.2020 is not published as required under law, the respondent states that without following due procedure, the notice will not be published.
4.The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is recorded. In case, the respondent publish any sale notice as required under the rules framed under the SARFAESI Act, it is open to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act. With such liberty, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
(S.S.S.R., J.) & (C.S.N., J.)
09.03.2020
Index : Yes/no
Internet : Yes/no
Arul
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.4908 of 2020
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
C.SARAVANAN, J.
Arul
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.4908 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.4272 and 4273 of 2020
Dated:
09.03.2020
http://www.judis.nic.in