Parveen Sikkandar v. M/S.Idbi Bank Limited

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.3974, 3975, 3976, 3977, 3980 & 3982 of 2025 W.P.(MD) No.5426 of 2025:

Parveen Sikkandar ... Petitioner -vs1.M/s.IDBI Bank Limited represented by its Authorised Signatory No.115, Anna Salai, Saidapet Chennai-600 015 2.Neo Intex Mills Ltd., (Dissolved / Liquidated) rep.by the Official Liquidator High Court, Madras Office of the Official Liquidator Kuralagam, Chennai-600 001 3.The Branch Manager State Bank of India Tallakulam Branch 60, Alagar Koil Main Road Tallakulam, Madurai-625 002 ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order of attachment dated 20.09.2024 and the subsequent Garnishee order dated 03.12.2024 of the learned Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, made in TRC No.2701 of 2023 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent bank to refund the amounts of Rs.22,50,934 /- that were transferred from the petitioner's father savings account to the petitioner. For Petitioner Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel for M/s.Vast Law Associates For Respondents Mrs.Vinithra Srinivasan for R1 R2 - Not ready notice Mr.A.Karthick for R3 W.P.(MD) No.5427 of 2025:

Parveen Sikkandar ... Petitioner -vs1.M/s.IDBI Bank Limited represented by its Authorised Signatory No.115, Anna Salai, Saidapet Chennai-600 015

2.Neo Intex Mills Ltd., (Dissolved / Liquidated) rep.by the Official Liquidator High Court, Madras Office of the Official Liquidator Kuralagam Chennai-600 001 3.The Branch Manager Canara Bank Tallakulam Branch 779, Alagar Koil Road Tallakulam, Madurai-625 002 ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order of attachment dated 20.09.2024 and the subsequent Garnishee order dated 03.12.2024 of the learned Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, made in TRC No.2701 of 2023 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent bank to refund the amounts of Rs.1,57,000 /- that were transferred from the petitioner's father savings account to the petitioner. For Petitioner Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel for M/s.Vast Law Associates For Respondents Mrs.Vinithra Srinivasan for R1 R2 - Not ready notice Mr.P.Madhan Alexandar for R3

W.P.(MD) No.5428 of 2025:

S.Sohail Kasim ... Petitioner -vs1.M/s.IDBI Bank Limited represented by its Authorised Signatory No.115, Anna Salai, Saidapet Chennai-600 015 2.Neo Intex Mills Ltd., (Dissolved / Liquidated) rep.by the Official Liquidator High Court, Madras Office of the Official Liquidator Kuralagam, Chennai-600 001 3.M/s.Vishaal Promoters Private Limited 31, Vishaal De Mall Gokhale Road, Chinna Chokkikulam Madurai-625 002 ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Garnishee order dated 16.09.2024 and the subsequent order of attachment dated 23.09.2024 of the learned Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, made in TRC No.2701 of 2023 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent bank to refund the amounts of Rs.86,00,000 /- that were transferred from the third respondent to the petitioner.

For Petitioner Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel for M/s.Vast Law Associates For Respondents Mrs.Vinithra Srinivasan for R1 R2 - Not ready notice No appearance for R3 C O M M O N O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.] These writ petitions have been instituted challenging the orders of attachment and the subsequent garnishee orders. Such orders are susceptible to an appeal to the Recovery Officer, who has to decide the issue on hand under Rule 11 of Schedule-II of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In any case, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Celir LLP vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) (P) Ltd., reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent - Bank would submit that an alternate efficacious remedy is contemplated under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

3. Since the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners also made a submission that the matter may be relegated to the Recovery Officer of the concerned Debts Recovery Tribunal for deciding the issues on merits, the petitioners are granted liberty to approach the Recovery Officer in the manner contemplated.

4. In such an event, the Recovery Officer shall take into consideration the period during which the present writ petitions were pending before this Court for the purpose of condonation of delay, if any, and decide the issues on merits and in accordance with law.

5. With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. [S.M.S., J.] [A.D.M.C., J.] 10.06.2025 NCC Yes / No Index Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No krk

To:

The Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

and DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE , J.

krk W.P.(MD) Nos.5426, 5427 & 5428 of and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.3974, 3975, 3976, 3977, 3980 & 3982 of 2025 10.06.2025