Senthilkumar E v. The Authorised Officer

O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.] The sale notice, dated 01.11.2022, issued by the respondent – Bank, is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

¶2The writ petition is not entertainable, since action was initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and if aggrieved, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. Granting fifteen days time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

[S.M.S., J.] [V.L.N., J.]

20.12.2023 NCC : Index : Internet : Note: The Registry is directed to return the original sale notice, dated 01.11.2022 to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after obtaining due acknowledgement and retaining a copy of the same for file.

krk

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and V . LAKSHMINARAYANAN , J . krk and W.M.P.(MD) No.21069 of 2022

20.12.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.12.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN and W.M.P.(MD) No.21069 of 2022 E.Senthilkumar ... Petitioner -vs- The Authorised Officer Bank of Baroda Regional Office Stressed Assets Recovery Branch ROSARB Plot No.14, Door No.3, 4 & 5 thSakthi Velammal 10 Street SS Colony Madurai-625 016 ... Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned sale notice dated 01.11.2022, issued by the respondent Bank and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ganga Sapapathy For Respondent : Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan