Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)Section 13 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S. South Indian Bank Ltd. vs Naveen Mathew Philip on 17 April, 2023
7. 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,
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23580 of 2024
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.
Authorized Officer, State Bank Of ... vs Mathew K.C. on 30 January, 2018
6. Further, 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 maintainable.
Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. vs Punjab National Bank on 27 November, 2017
5. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to refer that the Supreme Court in
the case of The Authorized Officer, 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
__________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23580 of 2024
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.
Icici Bank Ltd. vs Umakanta Mohapatra on 5 October, 2018
6. Further, 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 maintainable.
1