D. MANIKANDAN Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER, SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) 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 Ist Main Road, Velachery, Chennai -42.

(3.) IT is noted that the Supreme Court, in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others, reported in(2010) 8 SCC 110, 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 -op.Bank Ltd. V. Sri Ikbal, reported in (2013) 6 MLJ 571 (SC).