Selvaraj v. The Recovery Officer-IIDebt Recovery Tribunal
Case at a glance
- Bench
- R SURESH KUMAR
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44.A. Sureshkumar5.A. Rangasamy..Respondent(s)to restrain the respondent 1 from the property which is an extent of 1551 square feets of land with building in SF. No.225/1 of Vellalore Villae is cited as Item No.1, in the notice issued by the respondent -1 and item No.2 in…
Judgment
W.P.No.7702 of 2026__________Page No.1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 15-04-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMARANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMARWP No. 7702 of 2026 Selvaraj..Petitioner(s)Vs1.The Recovery Officer-IIDebt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore 641 018.
Union Bank of India, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Tirupur Main Branch, 300/14 Mangalam Road, Tiruppur -641 604.
M/s. Neethu Garments, Rep. by its Partner, A.Sureshkumar,D.No.13/5A, karupparayan Koil Street, Kumaranandapuram, Tiruppur-641 603.
A. Sureshkumar5.A. Rangasamy..Respondent(s)to restrain the respondent 1 from the property which is an extent of 1551 square feets of land with building in SF. No.225/1 of Vellalore Villae is cited as Item No.1, in the notice issued by the respondent -1 and item No.2 in the Notice which is an extent of 2178 square feets of land with building in SF. No.225/1 of Vellalore Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore District from attach and sell the property in RP No.141/2020 in DRC No.641/2019 in OA No.97/2014 dated 22.12.2025 on the file of 1st Respondent. For Petitioner(s):Mr. M.SaravanakumarFor Respondent(s):Ms.Ananda Gomathyfor R2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7702 of 2026__________Page No.2 of 4ORDER(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the first respondent from dealing with the properties mentioned in the Schedule, that is in the prayer of the writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Saravanakumar, submits that, the two properties against which notice for drawing proclamation of sale under Rule 53 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Sections 25 to 29 of the Recovery of Due to Bankruptcy Act, 1993, since was issued, the same was issued without having valued the mortgage in respect of the properties in question of the petitioner, who stood as the guarantor with regard to the loan advanced by the Bank to the borrower.3. Whether he stood as a guarantor; what properties have been mortgaged; whether the properties that are covered in the impugned order also have been covered in the mortgage or not, are all the matters to be gone into by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, before whom, the petitioner could very well agitate the issue by filing appropriate petition in the manner known to law. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7702 of 2026__________Page No.3 of 44.
Therefore, this writ petition is not entertain able and accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed, hence, it is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. No costs. (R.S.K.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 15-04-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/No(drm)To:1. The Recovery Officer-II Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore 641 018.2. Branch Manager Union Bank of India, Tirupur Main Branch, 300/14 Mangalam Road, Tiruppur -641 604. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7702 of 2026__________Page No.4 of 4R.SURESH KUMAR, J.ANDN.SENTHILKUMAR, J.(drm)W.P.No.7702 of 202615-04-2026
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.