J.RAJIV SUBRAMANIYAN Vs. M/S. PANDIYAS
LAWS(SC)-2014-3-28
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
March 14,2014
J.Rajiv Subramaniyan
Appellant
VERSUS
M/S. Pandiyas
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
UNITED BANK OF INDIA VS. SATYAWATI TONDON [REFERRED TO]MATHEW VARGHESE VS. AMRITHA KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SKYTONE ELECTRICALS (INDIA) LIMITED VS. CANARA BANK [LAWS(P&H)-2022-5-213] [REFERRED TO]SANJAY VS. ANIL [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-155] [REFERRED TO]
M/S AFROZ ALAM VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKEENA VS. BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2019-8-68] [REFERRED TO]
P. MAGUDEESWARAN VS. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER LAKSHMI VILAS BANK [LAWS(MAD)-2017-8-357] [REFERRED TO]
BLUE COAST HOTELS LIMITED VS. IFCI LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-127] [REFERRED TO]
M/S KANIKA SWAMI VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-133] [REFERRED TO]
MS. VENSHIV PHARMA CHEM (P) LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH, KOTI, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2018-4-56] [REFERRED TO]
NEW HORIZON EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST VS. FEDERAL BANK LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2023-7-805] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKUNTALA JAISWAL VS. ALLAHABAD BANK [LAWS(CAL)-2014-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
NUPUR ENTERPRISES AND ORS. VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-4-84] [REFERRED TO]
T.V.BABU VS. THE CALICUT CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK [LAWS(KER)-2018-11-166] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA JAIN S/O RAJENDRA JAIN VS. SHRIPAD S/O SHRI MADHAO KAPIL & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2016-6-148] [REFERRED TO]
CONCERN READYMIX AND ORS. VS. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CORPORATION BANK AND ORS. [LAWS(TLNG)-2018-12-56] [REFERRED TO]
P.M. ABUBAKAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
AIPHINE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT VS. ANDHRA BANK [LAWS(TLNG)-2020-1-28] [REFERRED TO]
PURNIMA MAZUMDAR VS. UNITED BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
BLUE COAST HOTELS LIMITED VS. IFCI LIMITED AND ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2016-1-251] [REFERRED]
PHOENIX ARC PVT. LTD VS. VISHWA BHARATI VIDYA MANDIR [LAWS(BOM)-2022-1-305] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT HEALTHCARE LIMITED AND ANR VS. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-9-226] [REFERRED]
SHANMUGANATHAN VS. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK [LAWS(KER)-2017-4-65] [REFERRED TO]
SONALI MOHAPATRA VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2016-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
KWALITY AGRO PRODUCTS VS. CANARA BANK, MADIKONDA BRANCH AND ORS. [LAWS(TLNG)-2018-10-41] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH PRAHLAD DAS RATHI & OTHERS VS. UCO BANK & ORS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-5-219] [REFERRED TO]
URMILA KUMARI VS. OM PRAKASH JANGRA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-237] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. R.VIMALA VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2016-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT KHANEJA AND ORS VS. IL&FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2020-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
USHA OFFSET PRINTERS (P.) LTD. VS. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-2-201] [REFERRED TO]
K. V. V. PRASAD RAO GUPTA VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-2-135] [REFERRED TO]
THARA PHILIP VS. FEDERAL BANK LTD [LAWS(KER)-2023-10-198] [REFERRED TO]
S. KARTHIK VS. N. SUBHASH CHAND JAIN [LAWS(SC)-2021-9-85] [REFERRED TO]
SWAMY THANKAPPAN VS. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(KER)-2016-7-203] [REFERRED TO]
SPS STEELS ROLLING MILLS LTD. VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-6-73] [REFERRED TO]
HAMCO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2020-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
POCHIRAJU INDUSTRIES LTD., TAMILNADU VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(APH)-2018-1-45] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. SWATI PATEL VS. BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-184] [REFERRED TO]
AMITI GUPTA VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2019-4-330] [REFERRED TO]
KWALITY AGRO PRODUCTS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR K. SRINIVASA RAO VS. CANARA BANK, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER/ AUTHORIZED OFFICER, MADIKONDA BRANCH, WARANGAL [LAWS(APH)-2018-10-23] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL NAHA & BEYOND AND ORS. VS. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH [LAWS(CAL)-2016-4-45] [REFERRED TO]
S. SHANMUGANATHAN VS. AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK [LAWS(MAD)-2017-4-156] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP J.KAUNTE VS. GOA STATE CO-OP.BANK LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-113] [REFERRED TO]
DEENADAYAL NAGARI SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. MUNJAJI [LAWS(SC)-2022-2-60] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. SUPRATECH HOSPITAL PVT LTD [LAWS(MPH)-2021-4-52] [REFERRED TO]
LLOVEGEET DHURIA VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-128] [REFERRED TO]
CONCERN READYMIX VS. AUTHORISED OFFICER, CORPORATION BANKLABIC [LAWS(APH)-2018-12-28] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI ENTERPRISES VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2017-11-402] [REFERRED TO]
HABUNG LAILANG VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2016-1-49] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. DEEPA TALUKDAR AND 3 ORS VS. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 17 ORS [LAWS(GAU)-2019-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
ADHYA INDUSTRIES VS. VIJAYA BANK [LAWS(TLNG)-2020-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. -
(1.)LEAVE granted.
(2.)THESE special leave petitions are directed against the final judgment and order dated 14th June, 2011 passed by the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) in W.A.No.417 of 2011 dismissing the aforesaid Writ Appeal filed by the appellants.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
(3.)MR . Ashok Desai learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that although many issues have been raised in the SLP, he is not pressing the point that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The point with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition was taken on the basis of a judgment of this Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors.1. It was urged before the High Court that an alternative remedy being available to respondent Nos.1 and 2 under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Act, 2002), the writ petition would not be maintainable. The second issue with regard to the maintainability was based on the fact that earlier 1 [2010 (8) SCC 110] respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed Writ Petition Nos.5027 -28 of 2006 challenging the auction sale notice dated 23rd May, 2006. However, these writ petitions were withdrawn on 3rd July, 2006. The High Court did not give any liberty to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to file fresh writ petition. Mr. Desai very fairly submitted that it is not necessary to examine the issues on maintainability of the writ petition, as the entire issue is before this Court on merits.
(2.)THESE special leave petitions are directed against the final judgment and order dated 14th June, 2011 passed by the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) in W.A.No.417 of 2011 dismissing the aforesaid Writ Appeal filed by the appellants.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
(3.)MR . Ashok Desai learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that although many issues have been raised in the SLP, he is not pressing the point that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The point with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition was taken on the basis of a judgment of this Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors.1. It was urged before the High Court that an alternative remedy being available to respondent Nos.1 and 2 under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Act, 2002), the writ petition would not be maintainable. The second issue with regard to the maintainability was based on the fact that earlier 1 [2010 (8) SCC 110] respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed Writ Petition Nos.5027 -28 of 2006 challenging the auction sale notice dated 23rd May, 2006. However, these writ petitions were withdrawn on 3rd July, 2006. The High Court did not give any liberty to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to file fresh writ petition. Mr. Desai very fairly submitted that it is not necessary to examine the issues on maintainability of the writ petition, as the entire issue is before this Court on merits.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.