IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 15-10-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.62 of 2003 Mrs.Mangala Ranka .. Petitioner. Versus 1.Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai. 2.Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai. 3.Tamil Nadu Industrial Investments Corporation Ltd., Whites Road, Chennai represented by its Branch Manager. .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorari, calling for the notification of the 1st respondent, dated 3.4.2002, and quash the same. For Petitioner : Ms.J.Anandhavalli For Respondents : Mr.D.T.Janarthanam (R3) O R D E R This writ petition has been filed to call for the notification of the first respondent, dated 3.4.2002, and to quash the same. 2. It has been stated by the petitioner that she is the third respondent in the original application in O.A.No.715 of 2001, filed by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investments Corporation Limited, Chennai, the third respondent herein. The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investments Corporation Limited, had filed an application in O.A.No.365 of 1999, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, and the said application was transferred to the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, and re-numbered as O.A.No.715 of 2001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ While so, the first respondent had issued a notification, on 3.4.2002, directing the defendants to file a counter to the proof affidavit filed by the applicant and also to satisfy the first respondent with good reasons for cross-examination of the deponent of the proof affidavit. Thereafter, the first respondent would decide whether the request for cross-examination is to be allowed. Since the petitioner has been deprived of her legal right of cross- examination of the deponent of the proof affidavit, by the impugned notification of the first respondent, dated 3.4.2002, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent had submitted that the petitioner has sufficient efficacious remedies, as provided under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. He has also submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and another Vs. Delhi High Court Bar Association and others (2002(2) CTC 106). 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. csh To 1.The Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai. 2.The Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Branch Manager. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investments Corporation Ltd., Whites Road, Chennai 1 cc to M/s. Sampathkumar, Associates, SR. 57560 Writ Petition No.62 of 2003 MG (CO) kk 31/10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/