K.Shanmugam v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.11.2023 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY K.Shanmugam ..

Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector Erode District.

2. The Authorized Officer Canara Bank, SME Branch Perundurai, Erode District.

3. M/s.Kun Tyres India Pvt. Ltd.

Plot No.121 and 122, SIPCOT Indutrial Growth, Perundurai 638 052.

4. R.Ravichandran Managing Director Kun Tyres India Pvt. Ltd.

No.468/11, Silverline Apts.

Bhavani Main Road, Kadhampalayam Pirivu Perundurai 638 052.

5. R.Sathieswari Director of Kun Tyres India Pvt. Ltd.

No.468/11, Silverline Apts.

Bhavani Main Road, Kadhampalayam Pirivu Perundurai 638 052.

6. M.P.Sathish Kumar

7. Sangeetha

8. S.P.Manimegalai ..

Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent vide Ref:27469/2015/D2 dated 18.08.2016 and quash the same in view of no jurisdiction is vested with the first respondent to pass order under the SARFAESI Act and further no specific reason is stated for the inherent and in-ordinate delay in keeping the said order in cold storage for about five years period without executing the same and was processed vide the memorandum dated 23.05.2023 after the power was taken away from the first respondent. For the Petitioner : Mr.V.Jayachandran For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader for R1 Mr.P.Raghunathan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.

for R2

ORDER

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard Mr.V.Jayachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mr.P.Raghunathan, learned counsel for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co. for the second respondent.

2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 18.08.2016 passed by the first respondent under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

3. The petitioner has already filed an application challenging the same order before the Debts Recovery Tribunal along with an application for condonation of delay. The delay was not condoned. The said order is not assailed. In the absence thereof, the writ petition cannot be entertained. Moreover, the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal can be challenged before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner would challenge the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

5. The petitioner may avail the alternate remedy, as may be permissible under law. In that event, all contentions of the respective parties are kept open.

6. In the light of that, the writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.32067 and 32068 of 2023 are closed.

(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 17.11.2023 Index :

Yes/No :

Yes/No drm To

1. The District Collector Erode District.

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

(drm) 17.11.2023