LAWS(MAD)-2009-1-130

R KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. AUTHORIZED OFFICER

Decided On January 09, 2009
R.KRISHNAMOORTHY Appellant
V/S
AUTHORIZED OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the first respondent Bank from proceeding to sell or transfer the properties of the petitioner covered in the notice dated 9.1.2007 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 to the second respondent or any other third parties by private negotiations, without following due process of law and consequently direct the first respondent to receive the payments from the petitioner towards the outstanding dues and close loan account of M/s. Chitrahar Traders.) This Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the first respondent Bank from proceeding to sell or transfer the properties of the petitioner covered in the notice dated 9.1.2007 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the SARFAESI Act').

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that though the notice was issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, without taking any action under Section 13(4), the Bank is taking steps to transfer the properties to second respondent or any other third parties.

(3.) SO far as the sale of the secured asset is concerned, there is nothing on record to suggest that any sale notice has been issued by UCO Bank or by the other Bank. On the other hand, from the letter dated 27.12.2008 issued by UCO Bank, it appears that on the representation of the petitioner for compromising the matter, he has been informed that the Bank is not agreeable to any compromise. Therein, it has been referred that the petitioner has obtained a stay order and interim order from this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, that Writ Petition was taken, as Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. has taken steps under Section 13(4), but after payment of money, the Writ Petition can be treated to be infructuous, which is still pending. It is further informed that the petitioner has agreed to settle the matter with UCO Bank by paying all the dues.