The Madras High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on the petitioner and dismissed a petition seeking a restraint on the respondent bank from taking physical possession of the property situated in Surampatti, Erode District, till the disposal of a case pending at the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore.
The Petition has been filed by one Mahalingam.
M.L. Ramesh, the counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the proceedings taken by the respondent bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, wherein an interim order was passed. The respondent bank, suppressing the fact in regard to the interim order, made an application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode under Section 14 of the Act of 2022 and obtained an order. The petitioner has challenged the said order by maintaining an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore.
The counsel further submitted that the present petition has been filed for the reason that the order under Section 14 of the Act of 2022 has been obtained by suppressing the fact about the interim order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N. Mala found that despite a challenge to the order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2022 by maintaining an appeal, the said order has been indirectly challenged simultaneously by maintaining this writ petition. It is on the same ground an appeal was preferred and even admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Therefore, the Bench observed that in view of the above, the petition is nothing but abuse of the jurisdiction of the Court on the same cause, for which an appeal has already been preferred and is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. A party cannot avail two remedies simultaneously to challenge the order or to seek any relief in reference to it, which includes even to forbear the respondent bank from taking physical possession pursuant to the order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002.
“Thus, the writ petition is dismissed for the reason aforesaid with costs assessed at Rs 10,000 to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within fifteen days. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court, Madras is directed to ensure compliance of payment of costs within the stipulated time and if payment of costs is not made, the disposed of writ petition may be listed again before this Court to take appropriate proceedings in the matter,” the order reads.