{"id":179947,"date":"2010-03-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010"},"modified":"2017-09-07T02:53:53","modified_gmt":"2017-09-06T21:23:53","slug":"kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Kalpesh P.C.Surana vs Indian Bank on 10 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Kalpesh P.C.Surana vs Indian Bank on 10 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED:   10\/03\/2010\n\nC O R A M\n\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN\n\nand\n\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM\n\nWrit Petition No.21759  of 2009\nand\nM.P.No.1 of 2009\n\nKalpesh  P.C.Surana\t\t         \t    ... Petitioner \nVs\nIndian Bank\nTeynampet Branch,\n463, Anna Salai,\nTeynampet, Chennai-600 018\nthrough its Authorised Officer \t\t    ...  Respondent\n\n    Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of mandamus directing the respondent  Bank to forbear from bringing the agricultural land described in the schedule hereunder to sale on 27.10.2009 or any other date by Tender\/Auction\/Tender cum Auction by invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest  Act, 2002 (Central Act 54 of 2002)  as amended.\n\t\t    For Petitioner      ...   Mr.S.Raghavan\n\n\t\t    For  Respondent  ...   Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia\n\t\t\t                           for M\/s.Aiyar & Dolia\n\n\n\n\n             O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
           (Order of the Court was made by C.NAGAPPAN, J.)<\/p>\n
\tThe petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent  Bank to forbear from bringing the agricultural land described in the schedule, to sale on 27.10.2009 or any other date by invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest  Act, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.  The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of  the     agricultural land bearing Survey No.131\/8 part and Patta No.1015 issued in his name on 30.7.2007 of an extent of  1 acre and 62 cents in Vaikkadu village and he purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated  20.3.1990 and the land is described as agricultural land in the sale deed and Patta No.237 was given to his vendor  pursuant to the order dated 5.2.1972 made by the Settlement Tahsildar, Chinglepet  under  Section  12 of the Tamil Nadu Act No.26 of 1963  and kist has been paid by his vendor as well as by himself  and it has been used for  agricultural purpose and was given on lease from 19.9.2001 to one Motilal  by the petitioner.   It  is further stated by the petitioner that the respondent Bank granted loan to one S.Sakthivel upto a limit of Rs.1,00,00,000\/- and on 21.8.2007, the petitioner executed a Guarantee Agreement along with Mrs.S.Vijayakumari, wife of  Sakthivel  for due repayment of the loan and the respondent Bank obtained from him on 24.8.2007 a Memorandum of  deposit  of  Title  Deeds by which it  purported      to obtain an equitable mortgage by deposit of documents                of  agricultural  land  of  the petitioner as security for repayment  of  loan  advanced  to Sakthivel.   According to the petitioner, the list       of documents annexed to the said Memorandum  shows that the land is  agricultural land  and the  Documents  1 to 12  in the Memorandum  are xerox copies and not originals and there was no valid deposit of title deeds of the agricultural land and as such there is no valid and enforceable equitable mortgage created  in favour of the respondent Bank.    The petitioner has further stated that  for the first  time he received a demand notice dated 6.6.2009 purported to have been issued under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest  Act, 2002  from the Authorised Officer and Chief  Manager of the respondent Bank  addressed to the borrower  as well as the guarantors  calling upon them  to pay a sum of  Rs.95,29,983.70 with interest and in the event of  failure,  to  initiate appropriate  legal proceedings for recovery  and  another legal notice  dated 6.6.2009  classifying the loan account as Non Performing Asset and calling upon them  to  pay the amount, failing which, to exercise the right under Section 13(4)  of the Act against the secured  asset  viz.   agricultural  land  belonging to the petitioner.   According to the petitioner, he sent a detailed reply dated 3.8.2009  which was received by the  respondent  Bank and it  did not consider his representation\/objection and    did not communicate any reply within the stipulated period under the Act and the petitioner received the notice  of  intended sale on 29.9.2009 and aggrieved by the same, he has filed the present  writ  petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.  The main ground raised by the petitioner is that the land of the petitioner is agricultural land and it is evident on the face of the documents mentioned in the registered Memorandum  of  Deposit of Title deeds and since the land is classified as agricultural land by the Revenue Authority, the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest  Act, 2002 are not applicable as stipulated under Section 31(i) of the Act and the proceedings initiated  by the   Authorised Officer  are null and void.   In support of the submission,  the petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in  N.SRINIVASA RAO   V.  SPECIAL COURT UNDER THE A.P. LAND GRABBING (PROHIBITION)  ACT<\/a>   (2006) 4 SCC 214).              In addition, the petitioner has also raised the ground that the respondent  Bank has failed to consider the representation\/objection of the petitioner dated  3.8.2009 and has not communicated the reasons for non-acceptance of it  and in view of the failure to comply with Section 13(3-A) of the Act, the proceedings are vitiated and in support of the submission,  the petitioner relies on  the decision  of the Supreme Court in MARDIA CHEMICALS LTD.   V.  UNION OF INDIA<\/a>   [(2004)  4  SCC  311].\n<\/p>\n
\t4.  The  next  contention of the peitioner is that  the proposed notice of  intended  sale is contrary to  Rules  8 and 9  of  the  Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and no possession notice  has been delivered by the Authorised Officer to the petitioner for having taken possession of the land  as  contemplated under Rule 8(1) and there is non-compliance of the provision of  Rule 8.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.  The respondent Bank in its counter affidavit has stated      that the property of the petitioner was offered by way of        equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds as security for the loan obtained by Sakthivel and the said equitable mortgage was duly registered as Document No.9702\/2007 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tiruvottiyur and  the petitioner had given his sworn affidavit  in the form of declaration, dated 24.8.2007, wherein he confirmed that he has submitted all the original documents pertaining to the property with the respondent Bank for the purpose of mortgage by way of collateral security  and  in addition, the petitioner along with Mrs.S.Vijayakumari, wife of  Sakthivel, stood as guarantors jointly and severally for the due repayment of the loan and as on 14.12.2009, a sum of Rs.97,23,646.70  was  due and repayable  in the loan account.  According to the respondent, the land which was offered as security  is not  agricultural land and it  is in the midst of  joint  industrial houses  and  it has never been put to any agricultural activities and the petitioner has produced a certificate dated 22.8.2007 to the respondent Bank  issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Manali Town Panchayat  cetifying that the land is  an industrial land.  It is further stated by the respondent Bank  that it is in  custody and possession of the original  title  deeds and documents including the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and the allegation that no valid equitable mortgage was created is false and the property is not agricultural land and Section 31(i) of  the  SARFAESI  Act is not attracted.   The respondent  has further stated that  after considering the representation of the petitioner, the respondent sent its  reply on  5.8.2009 by registered post with acknowledgement due, which was returned  after several  attempts by the postal department with an endorsement  “door  locked  always” and the possession notice has been sent to the petitioner and affixed in the respective premises of the petitioner as well as the borrower and was also published in the newspapers as per the  Rules  and  clear  30  days  notice  before auction of the property was given to the parties on the first  occasion and there is no requirement to issue notice  for  every intended  sale, and the issuance of possession notice would show that the reply given by the petitioner was not satisfactory and that the property of the petitioner was brought to sale but there was  no  bidder and the sale  did not  take place.    It is further stated by the respondent that  the  petitioner,  without  filing application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI  Act, has filed the writ  petition and it is not maintainable and  further, the disputed  questions of fact  cannot be agitated in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India.   In support of the submission,  the respondent  relies on the following    decisions:\n<\/p>\n
“(1) W.-T.  COMMR.,  A.P.  V.  COURT  OF  WARDS, PAIGAH  (AIR<\/a> 1977 SUPREME COURT 113)<\/p>\n
(2)  SARIF ABIBI MOHMED IBRAHIM  V.  CIT   (1993 Supp (4) SCC 707)<\/p>\n
(3)  C.I.T  V.  GEMINI PICTURES  CIRCUIT PVT. LTD. (1996) 4  SCC 216)<\/p>\n
(4)  PUNJAB  NATIONAL  BANK  V.  O.C. KRISHNAN<\/a>  (2001) 6  SCC  569) <\/p>\n
(5)  SMT. MANYAM MEENAKSHAMMA  V. COMMR. OF WEALTH-TAX   [1967] 63  I.T.R.  534]<\/p>\n
(6) RAVICHANDRAN, D.  V.  MANAGER,  I.O.B.,  COIMBATORE<\/a>  (2006) 2 M.L.J.  134)”\n<\/p>\n
     6. The petitioner filed  reply  affidavit, in which, he has stated that he has not passed the letter dated 24.8.2007 to the respondent Bank and he did not  produce the certificate dated 22.8.2007 from Village Administrative Officer,  Manali  Town Panchayat  as alleged by the respondent Bank and the alleged service of reply dated 5.8.2009, by registered post with acknowledgement due to the petitioner cannot be taken as valid service on the petitioner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     \t7.  The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the secured asset is agricultural land belonging to the petitioner and  as per  Section 31(i) of the  Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest  Act, 2002,    the  provisions of   the SARFAESI  Act do not apply to any security interest created in agricultural land and  the proceedings are vitiated and to highlight the submission, the learned  counsel  for the petitioner pointed out the recitals in the sale  deed, dated 29.3.1990,  Lease Agreement dated 19.9.2001, Patta  dated 30.7.2007 and Extracts of  Chitta and Adangal, issued by the Village Administrative Officer,  Manali Town Panchayat and Land tax receipts, which are found mentioned in the Memorandum of Deposit  of       Title  Deeds, dated  24.8.2007.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the classification is agricultural land and it continues  to be  so and it is evident on the face of the documents found mentioned in the Memorandum and no other evidence is required  to  prove  the  same and the provisions of the  Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest  Act, 2002  are  not  applicable  and  the existence of  an  alternative  remedy under the Act may not be considered  an absolute  bar in the present case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         9.  Per  contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, submits that the determination of the character of land, according to the purpose for which it is meant or set apart and can be used, is a matter which ought to be determined on the facts of each  case and  whether or not the land is an agricultural land is essentially a question of fact, which has to be decided on the basis of  evidence  adduced and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest  Act, 2002  does not define the term ‘agricultural land’  and the object of the Act has to be          borne in mind and the term ‘agricultural land’  cannot be given  liberal and wide  interpretation and the question  as to whether  secured asset  is  an agricultural land or not,  cannot  be gone into and decided  by the Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution  of  India.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          10.  It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that though the land is described as agricultural land in the sale deed,  the petitioner,  in  the Memorandum and in  the affidavit  of  Declaration  executed by him,  has  not  described it    as  ‘agricultural land’  and the land is situated in-between the premises  of  two  Companies  carrying  on manufacturing  activities in the urban area and there is no agricultural use of the land  and the Village Administrative Officer of the concerned  place  has  also given the certificate stating that the land of the petitioner has been classified  as  ‘industrial land’ and hence the contention of the petitioner is  liable  to be  rejected.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t11. We are conscious of the fact that the documents  mentioned in the Letter and Memorandum of  Deposit of Title deeds  include  Patta,  Extract of Chitta and Adangal  and land tax  receipts.   Though the petitioner has purchased the land in the year 1990,  he has obtained  Patta in his name only on 30.7.2007, which is evident from the copy of the Patta  found in the  typed  set of the petitioner.       We also find from the typed  set  filed by the respondent that the Village Administrative Officer of the place in which the property is situated viz., Manali Town Panchayat,  has issued  certificate   dated 22.8.2007 stating  that  the  classification of  the land in which security  interest  created  is   ‘industrial  land’.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The Supreme Court in the decision in W.-T. COMMR.,   A.P., case referred supra, considered whether the land in question was “agricultural lands” within the meaning of Section 2(e)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act.  In the said case, the appeal was against a decision of Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, wherein the          Full Bench observed that the land in question had been assessed to land revenue as agriculture land, it had two wells and possesses all characteristics of agricultural land and these factors strongly indicate that the land in question is agricultural land.  The Supreme Court while rejecting such finding held thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“15.  We think that it is not correct to give as wide a meaning as possible to terms used in a statute simply because the statute does not define an expression. The correct rule is that we have to endeavour to find out the exact sense in which the words have been used in a particular context. We are entitled to look at the statute as a whole and give an interpretation in consonance with the purposes of the statute and what logically follows from the terms used. We are to avoid absurd results. If we were to give the widest possible connotation to the words agricultural land, as the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court seemed inclined to give to the term agricultural land, we would reach the conclusion that practically all land, even that covered by buildings, is agricultural land inasmuch as its potential or possible use could be agricultural. The object of the Wealth Tax Act is to tax surplus wealth. It is clear that all land is not excluded from the definition of assets. It is only agricultural land which could be exempted. Therefore, it is imperative to give reasonable limits to the scope of the agricultural land, or, in other words, this exemption had to be necessarily given a more restricted meaning than the very wide ambit given to it by the Andhra Pradesh Full Bench.”\n<\/p>\n
24….. We agree that the determination of the character of land, according to the purpose for which it is meant or set apart and can be used, is a matter which ought to be determined on the facts of each particular case. What is really required to be shewn is the connection with an agricultural purpose and user and not the mere possibility of user of land, by some possible future owner or possessor, for an agricultural purpose. It is not the mere potentiality, which will only affect its valuation as part of assets, but its actual condition and intended user which has to be seen for purposes of exemption from wealth tax….\n<\/p>\n
…. We do not think that all these considerations were kept in view by the taxing authorities in deciding the question of fact which was really for the assessing authorities to determine having regard to all the relevant evidence and the law laid down by this Court. The       High Court should have sent back the case to the assessing authorities for deciding the question of fact after stating the law correctly.\n<\/p>\n
25. We think that this is a fit case in which we should set aside the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court and hold that the tribunal should determine afresh, from a correct angle, the question of fact whether any of the lands under consideration were agricultural or not for the purposes of the Act before it….”\n<\/p>\n
Though  the observation has  been made in the decision arising under  a Taxation statute, yet the observation as to the  test to determine as to whether the land is an agricultural land or not, is clearly  found mentioned.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.  It is seen that the decision of the Supreme Court referred above was followed by this Court in the decision in D.Ravichandran Vs. Manager, I.O.B., case referred supra, and it was held that the question whether the secured asset is an agricultural land or not, whether any agricultural operations are being carried on etc, are undoubtedly questions of fact, which cannot be gone into and decided in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.                     The Supreme Court in the decision in SARIF ABIBI MOHMED IBRAHIM’S  CASE, referred above held:\n<\/p>\n
\t“12.Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact. Several tests have been evolved in the decisions of this Court and the High Courts, but all of them are more in the nature of guidelines. The question has to be answered in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. There may be factors both for and against a particular point of view. The Court has to answer the question on a consideration of all of them  a process of evaluation. The inference has to be drawn on a cumulative consideration of all the relevant facts.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court, the question of fact whether the secured asset is an agricultural land or otherwise cannot be gone into in a writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t 14. Admittedly, the secured  asset is  in urban area.  The land is situated in Manali, which is an industrial area and it is said to be surrounded by industrial buildings and there are no agricultural operations being  carried on nearby.   In such circumstances, whether the nature and character of the land is agricultural, has to be proved by  evidence.   It is also relevant that the Constitution  Bench of the Apex Court in the decision in COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX CASE (cited  supra)  has  laid down that  merely because the term used  in  a  statute is not defined,  it  is not correct to give a wide  meaning,  and interpretation in consonance with the purpose of the statute and what logically follows  from the terms used has to be made to avoid absurd results.   Therefore, it is imperative to give a reasonable limit to the scope of the “agricultural land” found mentioned in clause (i) of Section 31 of the  Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest  Act, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. Though the petitioner  has  stated that he purchased  the  land    in   the year  1990,  he  has obtained Patta  in the year 2007  just before  executing the Memorandum and as such, the use in which the land is  put into, has to be proved by the petitioner  by adducing  evidence.   The documents  relied on by the petitioner  and found  mentioned in the Memorandum,  themselves  cannot be conclusive proof that the secured asset is an agricultural land and the claim has to be established by adducing evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. It  is  settled  law that the disputed questions of  fact  cannot be determined in a writ  petition under  Article 226 of the Constitution of  India.   Without  exhausting the remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner has  straightaway filed  the  writ  petition.   In the facts and circumstances of the case  in which the decision in  K. RAAMASELVAM  V.   INDIAN  OVERSEAS  BANK<\/a>  (2009 (5) CTC  385)  arose,  relied  on by the  petitioner,   it  is held that there is no need to  countenance such a plea raised by the petitioners in that  case, as the  question  raised in that  case was  purely on a question of  interpretation of  the  Statutory  Rule  as mentioned by the      Division  Bench  therein and the ratio of the said decision  will not apply to the present  case.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N.SRINIVASA RAO’s,   referred supra, to support his argument that the classification of the land as contained in the revenue records is final and conclusive.     The Supreme Court in the said case was considering the scope of proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and the effect of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 on such proceedings.  One of the contentions raised before the Supreme Court was that the subject land was included within the limits of the Hyderabad Municipality, and though the land was classified as agricultural lands, it has lost its agricultural character.  Considering the facts of the said case the Supreme Court held that except for the fact that the said lands were included within an urban area, there is nothing to show that the user of the same had been altered with the passage of time.  In the said case, there was adjudication of the rival claims before a Special Judge as to whether there was land grabbing within the scope of the Andhra Pradesh Law Grabbing Act.  In the said context the Supreme Court rendered such a finding.  In the case on hand, there has been no such prior adjudication into disputed question of facts and the petitioner has chosen to straightway approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and seeks for adjudication of such disputed question of fact, which is impermissible.  Therefore, the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘N.SRINIVASA RAO’ does not in any manner advance the case of the petitioner and cannot be applied to the present facts.   In  view  of  the above, we are unable to accept  the contention of the learned  counsel  for  the petitioner  that the petitioner has discharged the burden of proof that the land is an  agricultural   land.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. The next  contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent  Bank  has not considered the objection of the petitioner  and has not communicated the reasons for non-acceptance as stipulated under Section 13(3-A) of the    SARFAESI Act and possession of the land was not taken by the respondent as  contemplated under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and there was non-compliance of the said Rule  and  hence the proceedings are vitiated.    It  is the submission of the respondent  Bank that  it considered the representation of the petitioner and sent reply by registered post with acknowledgment due  and that was returned after several attempts by the postal department with an endorsement “door locked always” and hence there is compliance of the provision of  Section 13(3-A) of the  SARFAESI Act and the possession notice has been sent to the petitioner and affixed in the site as well as in the respective premises of the borrower and guarantors as per the Rule 8(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and clear 30 days notice before auctioning the property for the first time has been given and there    is no requirement to issue 30 days  notice for every intended sale   and  the provisions under Rules 8 and 9  were  complied  with.\n<\/p>\n
\t 19.  In fact a similar contention was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in I.D.B.I Ltd Vs. M\/s.KAMALDEEP SYNTHETICS LTD, AIR 2007 Madras 173, and Chief Justice A.P.Shah, as he then was, delivering the Judgment held:\n<\/p>\n
\t“9.  The proviso to sub-section (3-A) of S.13 of the SARFAESI Act makes it abundantly clear that the reasons so communicted or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons shall not confer any right upon the borrower to prefer an application to the DRT under S.17 or the Court of District Judge under    S.17-A of the Act.  Thus, the basic object of               sub-section (3-A) of  S.13 of the SARFAESI Act is to ensure the element of transparency and fair play in the implementation of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.  Learned counsel for the respondent is unable to demonstrate prejudice or loss that is likely to be caused to the respondent by reason of the possession notice given to it, earlier to the communication of the reasons for   non-acceptance of the objections raised by the borrower.  In our opinion, at the most, it would amount to a mere irregularity and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the appellant-bank has substantially complied with the provisions of S. 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus, in view of the above decision, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not merit acceptance.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. The issues whether the provisions of the Act are applicable, whether there is any procedural error are all matters to be adjudicated in an application (appeal) under Section 17 of the Act and not in a writ petition.  In this regard,  we are guided by the decision of the  Supreme Court in PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK V. O.C.KRISHNAN<\/a> (2001) 6 SCC 569), which dealt with a decision of the Calcutta High Court, which exercised jurisdiction under        Article 227 of the Constitution and interfered with an order of a Debt Recovery Tribunal ordering sale of mortgaged property under the provisions of  Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.    The Supreme Court held thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is a hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this fast-track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless, when there is an alternative remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\t21.  In view of the above,  the petitioner  is  not  entitled for the prayer sought for  in the  writ  petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.  The writ petition is dismissed.   Liberty is given to the petitioner to avail the remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act on any of the measures  taken  by the respondent  Bank under  Section 13(4) of   the  Act.   No  costs.  Connected  M.P.No.1 of  2009 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
   \t\t\t\t\t\t      (C.N., J.)      (T.S.S., J.)   \t\t\t\t\t       \t\t          10.3.2010                 \n\nIndex   :  Yes\nInternet:  Yes\n\nvks\n\n\nTo\n\n1. The Authorised Officer, \nIndian Bank,\nTeynampet Branch,\n463, Anna Salai,\nTeynampet, Chennai-600 018.\n \n\nC.NAGAPPAN, J.\nand       \nT.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.\nvks\n\n\n\n\n\nW.P.No.21759  of 2009\nand\nM.P.No.1 of 2009\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   10.3.2010<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Kalpesh P.C.Surana vs Indian Bank on 10 March, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10\/03\/2010 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN and THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition No.21759 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 Kalpesh P.C.Surana … Petitioner Vs Indian Bank […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-179947","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKalpesh P.C.Surana vs Indian Bank on 10 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kalpesh P.C.Surana vs Indian Bank on 10 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-06T21:23:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kalpesh P.C.Surana vs Indian Bank on 10 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-06T21:23:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4314,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Kalpesh P.C.Surana vs Indian Bank on 10 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-06T21:23:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kalpesh P.C.Surana vs Indian Bank on 10 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kalpesh P.C.Surana vs Indian Bank on 10 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kalpesh P.C.Surana vs Indian Bank on 10 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-06T21:23:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kalpesh P.C.Surana vs Indian Bank on 10 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-06T21:23:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010"},"wordCount":4314,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010","name":"Kalpesh P.C.Surana vs Indian Bank on 10 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-06T21:23:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpesh-p-c-surana-vs-indian-bank-on-10-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kalpesh P.C.Surana vs Indian Bank on 10 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179947","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=179947"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179947\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179947"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179947"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179947"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}