D. Manikandan vs The Authorised Officer, Syndicate Bank, V. Ravichandran and D. Shenbagavalli

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the impugned Sale Notice, dated 9.12.2013, issued by the respondent-bank, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, in respect of the property, at old No. 17, New No. 1B, Jaganathapuram 1st Main Road, Velachery, Chennai-42.

Even though various grounds have been raised on behalf of the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the petitioner ought to make his claims, relating to the issues arising for the consideration of this Court, in the present Writ Petition, before the appropriate forum, as provided under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. We make it clear that it would be open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds available to him, before the appropriate forum, as per law.

It is noted that the Supreme Court, in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others, , has made it clear that the scope of interference by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is limited in nature. It has also made it clear that the statutory schemes provided under the specific enactments should not be defeated by the exercise of the writ jurisdiction by this Court. As such, the alternative remedies provided to the petitioner, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, ought not to be interfered with, by this Court, by invoking its writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has reiterated the said position of law, in a recent decision, in GM, Sri Siddeshwara Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Another Vs. Sri Ikbal and Others, .

In view of the above, the petitioner is permitted to move the appropriate forum, provided under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. If the petitioner approaches the appropriate forum, the appropriate forum shall entertain such matter and dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to dismiss the present Writ Petition, with the observations and directions incorporated in this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014 are closed.