IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:27.8.2008 CORAM; THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.NO.8245 OF 2008 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2008 and 2 of 2008 M/s VNK Textile and Paper Mills P.Ltd., rep. by its Director R.Naren Chikkadasampalayam Village Palapatti Post Coimbatore District ..Petitioner vs 1.The Authorised Officer Indian Overseas Bank Specialised Asset Recovery Branch Management Branch Coimbatore 2.The Authorised Officer Indian Overseas Bank Main Road Karamadai Coimbatore 104 ..Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the demand notice dated 18.12.2006 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act and possession notice dated 19.03.2008 issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to restore possession of the properties enumerated in the possession notice dated 19.03.2008. for petitioner : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan for respondents : Mr.F.B.Benjamin George ORDER The writ petition is in respect of the borrowing of the amount by the writ petitioner Company from the bank. It is seen the respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bank has issued notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 18.12.2006 and the petitioner has not filed any objection and ultimately the possession notice was issued under Section 13(4) of the Act on 31.5.2007 and actual possession was taken on 19.3.2008. 2. It is the case of the respondent Bank that in fact when possession was taken one of the Directors of the Company was present and he has also not raised any objection. 3. According to the respondents the amount outstanding to the bank from the petitioner is around eight crores of rupees and as against the possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner cannot invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the alternative effective remedy available for the petitioner is to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd., V. Union of India(AIR 2004 SC 2371) and subsequently confirmed by the decision rendered in Transcore v. Union of India (2006(5) CTC 753). In view of the same, the writ petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. 4. It is open to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal against the proceedings initiated under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act by way of filing appeal. It is made clear that if the petitioner files such an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act within two weeks, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore shall receive the appeal and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law and the appeal shall not be rejected on the ground of limitation alone. 5. It is also made clear that for the period of two weeks to enable the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the bank shall not proceed with coercive action. In the event of the petitioner either not moving the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the time stipulated herein or getting any interim order from the Debts Recovery Tribunal, it is open to the respondent bank to proceed in accordance with law. 6. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Authorised Officer Indian Overseas Bank Specialised Asset Recovery Branch Management Branch Coimbatore 2.The Authorised Officer Indian Overseas Bank Main Road Karamadai Coimbatore 104 1 CC To Mr.F.B.Benjamin George, Advocate, SR NO.48122 W.P.NO.8245/2008 & M.P.No.1/2008 and 2/2008 bv(co) pmk/28.8.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/