Madras High Court P.Ananda Baskaran vs The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal on 5 March, 2015 [Orders Reserved on 25.02.2015] Dated:05.03.2015 Coram THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI AND THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.No.14994 of 2012 P.Ananda Baskaran ... Petitioner V. 1.The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Rep. By its Registrar, 24/2, Ethiraj Salai IV Floor, Egmore, Chennai  600 105. 2.The Debts Recovery Tribunal  I Represented by its Registrar, DEWA TOWERS VI Floor, No.770A, Anna Salai, Chennai  600 002. 3.M/s.Ind Bank Housing Limited, 2nd Floor, 480, Anna Salai, Chennai  600 035. 4.The Authorised Officer, Ind Bank Housing Limited, 480, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai  600 035. 5.The Authorised Signatory,Suriya Consultancy Property Consultant and Legal Solutions, No.8, 1st Floor, Annai Nagar, Agraharam Korattur, Chennai  600 076. (Near DRJ Hospital) ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order dated 4th June 2012 passed in M.A.(SA).No.37 of 2011 on the file of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and forbear the respondents from initiating the provisions of SARFAESI Act as against agricultural lands contrary to the provisions of the statute. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondents 1 & 2 : Tribunal For Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr.B.Chandrasekar ORDER M.VENUGOPAL, J. The Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 04.06.2012 in M.A.(SA).No.37 of 2011 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. Further, he has sought for passing of an order by this Court in restraining the Respondents from initiating the provisions of the SARFAESI Act as against the agricultural lands contrary to the provisions of the statute. 2.Writ Facts: (i) According to the Petitioner, a private limited company viz., Space Makers Private Limited was incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, which was promoted with a view to achieve the objects specified in the Memorandum. Even before the parties submitted proposals seeking credit facilities for business purposes, the Petitioner was holding immovable properties which are agricultural in character. As a matter of fact, the company was promoted to create and develop a Satellite Township in the Union Territory of Puducherry. The company submitted a proposal seeking for credit facilities from the 3rd Respondent for the purpose of purchase of 15 to 20 acres of land and develop a Satellite Township. The 3rd Respondent, after considering the proposal, sanctioned various credit facilities to the said company. (ii) The stand of the Petitioner is that he had not created mortgage in favour of the 3rd Respondent, for the credit facilities sanctioned company. However, the 3rd Respondent produced an affidavit that the Petitioner is producing the sale deeds as security for the proposed loan to be sanctioned to M/s.Space Makers Private Limited, which is disputed by the Petitioner. Although the company purchased numerous extent of lands from and out of the credit facilities sanctioned to them by the 3rd Respondent, neither the said company mortgaged those properties nor the 3rd Respondent took any steps to call upon the said company to create mortgage over the properties purchased by the company. It appears that the said company defaulted in keeping up the repayment schedule and in this connection, the 3rd Respondent filed a suit in C.S.No.904 of 2001 on the file of this Court, by recalling the entire loan together with interest and costs. (iii) The Petitioner, in the said suit, filed a detailed written statement disputing the claim of the Bank and had also pointed out that there was no mortgage in law and the blank papers signed by the Directors and other persons were misused by the Bank for suiting their needs. A perusal of the document would reveal that the signature of the Petitioner on empty forms were taken and thereafter filled up by the Bank. The Bank, being aware of the fact that a contest in the civil suit would expose the fraud played by them and in order to avoid a proper trial of the case, had ingeniously chosen to initiate proceedings under the SARFAESI Act by issuing statutory notice under Section 13(2) on 04.04.2006 calling upon the Petitioner, the Company and its Directors to pay a sum of Rs.3,52,72,755/ together with future interest and costs. (iv) The Petitioner sent a representation dated 12.05.2006 specifying his objections inter alia stating that he had never visited the 3rd Respondent's Office for execution of