(Per A.GOPAL REDDY, J.)

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to set aside the judgment of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in R.A.No.15 of 2006, dated 22.09.2008 by issuing a writ of Mandamus (wrongly prays for Mandamus instead of Certiorari) as it is arbitrary, contrary to law, illegal and non est in the eye of law and opposed to the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, Companies Act, Contract Act, Negotiable Instruments Act, Bankers Book of evidence Act etc.

Facts in nutshell, which give raise to filing of this writ petition, are as under:

1. M/s.Lakshmi Porcelains Limited-R4 herein (for short, “LPL/R4”) was jointly promoted by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation (for short, “APIDC”) as promoters and major share holders, and by the writ petitioner as a technocrat copromoter as a joint sector venture. In all LPL had ten directors, of whom three were nominated by the APIDC and IDBI, two by ICICI and three directors were independents from public and as approved by the IDBI. LPL availed the Open Cash Credit, Term Loan – I (Funded Interest Term Loan), Term Loan – II (Funded Interest Term Loan) and Term Loan – III (Working Capital Term Loan) facilities under letter of credit for its business at Hyderabad, after executing necessary documents in favour of Andhra Bank and Canara Bank i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively (for short, “R2 and R3). LPL created mortgage of their immovable property in favour of R2 and R3 as well as IDBI, IFCI and ICICI. The loan limits were subsequently enhanced, for which the writ petitioner agreed to guarantee the due repayment of all the amounts due under the said accounts of the LPL and executed deeds of guarantee in favour of R2 and R3, apart from acknowledging the liabilities by the LPL and the writ petitioner. Since the LPL and the writ petitioner, who is the Managing Director of LPL, committed default in repayment of the loan amounts availed, the banks filed O.A.No.698 of 1998 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore and on transferring the same to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, it was numbered as O.A.No.1652 of 1999, for recovery of a total sum of Rs.9,62,73,895.18 ps. (out of which Rs.4,80,16,244.57 ps. in favour of Andhra Bank – R2 and Rs.4,82,57,650.61 ps. In favour of Canara Bank – R3). It was pleaded by R2 and R3 that at the request of LPL, they sanctioned/renewed/enhanced the OCC limit of Rs.60.00 lakhs each, Bills limits of Rs.45.00 lakhs each, Letter of Credit limit of Rs.7.5 lakhs each and the Bank Guarantee limit of Rs.33.50 lakhs each. Both the banks agreed to reduce the rate of interest of the OCC account and Bills Discount account to 15% funding of interest on OCC Account from July, 1985 to 30.09.1987 amounting to Rs.13.20 lakhs due to each bank and the same was accordingly termed as Funded Interest Term Loan – I. The interest on Cash Credit from 01.10.1987 to 30.06.1988 amounting to Rs.7.30 lakhs due to each bank was funded and termed as Funded Interest Term Loan II. The irregularity in Cash Credit as on 30.06.1987 amounting to Rs.15.50 lakhs due to each bank was converted as Term Loan-III (Working Capital Term Loan). The OCC Limits of Rs.60.00 lakhs were enhanced to Rs.75.00 lakhs by Andhra Bank, for which LPL also availed ad hoc OCC Limit of Rs.25.00 lakhs and ad hoc Bills limit of Rs.25.00 lakhs from R2. R2 enhanced the Bills facility from Rs.45.00 lakhs to Rs.90.00 lakhs and the L.C. limit was enhanced to Rs.30.00 lakhs. Both the banks at the request of LPL, also issued various bank guarantees in favour of third parties. All the amounts were secured by way of hypothecation of movables and joint equitable mortgage of immovable properties in favour of R2 and R3-banks and R5 to R7/3rd to 5th defendants, besides the personal guarantee of the writ petitioner. As the LPL and the writ petitioner failed to liquidate the loan outstanding, the banks filed the above