PRIYA Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed challenging the notice dated 29.06.2011 issued to the petitioner by the first respondent/Bank for sale of the movables listed therein, by invoking the powers under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act'). Admittedly, the movable goods are belonging to the petitioner, who is a tenant in the property, belonging to the second respondent.

(2.) It is also not in dispute that the above said movables mentioned in the impugned notification are not the subject matter of security for the borrowal from the bank and the petitioner has not stood as a guarantor in respect of the amount stated to have been borrowed from the bank by one Samsen Papli, from whom the second respondent has purchased the property for repayment under the SARFAESI Act.

(3.) The petitioner, after giving notice under section 13(4) of the Act has approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode under section 14 of the Act and there are certain orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for possession. Since the petitioner/tenant has locked the premises by keeping the movables inside the house, there was further direction given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate appointing an Advocate Commissioner to brake open and take possession of the movables. Based on the said order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, the house resided by the petitioner was brake opened and the goods were taken to the custody of the first respondent/Bank. It is, at that stage, invoking the powers under SARFAESI Act, the first respondent/Bank has issued the impugned notification brining the movables for sale. The present writ petition is filed challenging the said notification.