W.P.No.25965 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.03.2025 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ W.P.No .25965 of 2022 and WMP Nos.25057 and 26901 of 2022 K.Naresh .. Petitioner vs 1.The Authorized Officer State Bank of India (Retail Assets Central Processing Centre) No.338, Sathees Paradise, 1st Floor, Velachery Main Road, Selaiyur, Chennai-600 073. 2.State Bank of India, Tambaram Branch-01243, No.58-A, V.N.Complex, Kamarajar Street, West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. 3.S.Prakash __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25965 of 2022 4.Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, Additional Office Building, Shastri Bhawan, Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. .. Respondents Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to RA (SA) No.2/2022 dated 12.04.2022 on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and consequently, quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Srinivasan for R & P Partners For Respondents : Mr.S.Rajesh for R2 R1- No appearance R3- Not ready in notice R4-Tribunal ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) On 23.04.2024, the following order came to be passed: “The petitioner had challenged the order under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Debts Recovery __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25965 of 2022 Tribunal had dismissed the application. Appeal filed before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application in view of the bifurcation of territorial jurisdiction. He further submits that movables, which are not hypothecated, are also taken into possession by the respondents. 3. The subject writ property is already sold in the year 2018 by resorting to the provisions of the Act of 2002. The petitioner, it appears, has not challenged the said sale. Learned counsel, however, submits that challenge was made to the sale by filing securitisation application and the same was not registered. Six years have passed by since the sale has taken place. No purpose would be served by prosecuting the petition challenging the order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002.” 4. Be that as it may, it is contended that movables in the said premises, which are not hypotheated, are also taken into possession by the respondents. List of such movables is placed on record at pages 133 to 135 of the preliminary typed set of papers. 5. To seek response of the respondents with regard to the movables being taken into possession by the respondents, issue notice to the respondents 1 to 3 returnable on 03.07.2024. 6. Place the matter on 03.07.2024." __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25965 of 2022 2. The auction purchaser is also in possession. 3. As regards the movables, Shri Srinivasan appearing for petitioner stated that the bank, illegally, in connivance with the Tahsildar, removed the movables and till date, have not handed over the same. 4. Counsel for respondent bank states that twice petitioner was informed; but petitioner chose not to come forward to take the goods and the goods are available in some godown and the bank has been paying Rs.6,000/- every month towards godown rent. 5. Shri Rajesh states that petitioner may reimburse the godown rent paid by the Bank and take away the movables under panchanama. 6. Counsel for respondent bank is justified in saying that the bank cannot be expected to protect petitioner's movables. Therefore, we will agree with the counsel that if by 28.03.2025, petitioner does not come forward to take the goods and pay the charges, bank will be at liberty to __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25965 of 2022 dispose of/deal with the movables at the cost, charges, consequences and risk of petitioner. 7. Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim applications stand closed. (K.R.SHRIRAM, C.J.) (MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.) 19.03.2025 Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No mrn __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25965 of 2022 To: 1. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 2. The Authorized Officer State Bank of India (Retail Assets Central Processing Centre) No.338, Sathees Paradise, 1st Floor, Velachery Main Road, Selaiyur, Chennai-600 073. 3. The State Bank of India, Tambaram Branch-01243, No.58-A, V.N.Complex, Kamarajar Street, West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25965 of 2022 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ ,J. (mrn) W.P.No .25965 of 2022 and 25057 and 26901 of 2022 19.03.2025 __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis