IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.6.2008 C O R A M : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN W.P.No. 37148 of 2007 and 1418 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2007, 1+1, 2 and 3 of 2008 1. M/s.Lakshmi Shankar Mills (P) Ltd. Aranmanai Siruvayal Kallai-630 305, Sivagangai District, rep.by its Directors. 2. V.Lakshminarayanan 3. V.L.Velayutham 4. Mr.L.Shankarnarayan ... Petitioners in WP.No. 37148 of 2007 J.Paramanandam ... Petitioner in WP.No. 1418 of 2008 -vs- 1. The Authorised Officer/Chief Manager, Indian Bank, No.101, East Avanimoola Street, Madurai Main Road, Madurai-695 001. 2. Macrotech Engineers, No.123, Venkatalakshmi Nagar, Trichy Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore. 3. The Registrar, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. ... Respondents in WP.37148 of 2007 The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, ARMB, No.55, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondent in WP. No.1418 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PRAYER in WP.37148 of 2007 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari by declaring that the order dated 28.11.2007 made in I.As.1348 and 1350 of 2007 in (SARFAESI 744/2007 on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai is set aside. PRAYER in WP.1418 of 2008 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondent herein or his men or agents or his subordinates/servants from in any manner bringing any of the properties of the petitioner herein for sale, lease, assignment etc, when the application under section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is pending for adjudication in Securitisation Application No.4 of 2004 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai. For petitioner :: Mr.K.Rajasekaran in WP.No. 37148 of 2007 Mr.Vijay Narayan, SC for M/s.Narmada Sampath in WP.1418 of 2008 For respondents :: Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia for R1 in both WPs. Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, SC for M/s.Anandagomathy Sivakumar for R2 in WP.37148 of 2007 O R D E R (ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J.) When the cases were taken up, learned counsel for the bank submitted that both the cases are covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2008-2-L.W.381 (M/s.Lakshmi Shankar Mills (P) Ltd. & others -vs- The Authorised Officer/Chief Manager, Indian Bank & Others). 2. We have also perused the said decision of the Full Bench, wherein the following observation is made in para 21:- ''21. As can be seen from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Securitisation Act, the main purpose of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Securitisation Act, and in particular Section 13 thereof, is to enable and empower the secured creditors to take possession of their securities and to deal with them without the intervention of the Court. Therefore, in an application under Section 17, the Tribunal is concerned only with the validity of the acts of the secured creditor in taking possession of the securities and dealing with the same under section 13. In our opinion, the Division Bench has rightly held that all such grounds, which would render the action of the bank/financial institution illegal, can be raised before the Tribunal in the proceedings under Section 17. It is for the Tribunal to decide in each case whether the action of the bank was in accordance with the provisions of the Act and legally sustainable. However, we hasten to add that while considering the question of validity of the action of the bank, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to adjudicate the exact amount due to the secured creditors. In other words, the purpose of an application under Section 17 is not the determination of the quantum of claim per se as the Tribunal is concerned with the issue of the validity of the measures taken by the banks/financial institutions under section 13(4). In our opinion, the judgment of the Division Bench in Mison Leathers Ltd. lays down the law correctly and does not require any reconsideration." 3. In view of the aforesaid decision, no further order is required to be passed in the present writ petitions. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /true copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar js To 1. The Authorised Officer/Chief Manager, Indian Bank, No.101, East Avanimoola Street, Madurai Main Road, Madurai-695 001. 2. The Registrar, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, ARMB No.55, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai. + 2 ccs to M/s. Aiyar & Dolia, Advocate SR No.32127 + 1 cc to M/s. Anand Gomathi Sivakumar Advocate SR No.32597 + 1 cc to M/s. K.Rajasekaran, SR No.32479 + 1 cc to M/s. Narmadha Sampath Advocate SR No.32356 W.P.No.37148 of 2007 & WP.1418 of 2008 and MP.Nos.1 of 2007, 1+1, 2 and 3 of 2008 KSK(CO) JJM(10.7.08) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/