Recovery of debt is exclusive jurisdiction of authorities under RDB Act.

The secured creditor Industrial Development Bank of India, Chennai obtained a decree on 21.11.2001 against the debtor Rajalakshmi Mills Limited, Singanallur, Coimbatore in O.A. No. 91 of 2000 from the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai. As the debtor failed to pay the amount, the Recovery Officer brought the mortgaged property in an extent of 20 acres 87 cents of land situated at Uppilipalayam village, Coimbatore District for sale in D.R.C. No. 79 of 2002. In that sale, one Ramajeyam, the fourth respondent in W.P. No. 25636 of 2004 has knocked down the property for a sum of Rs. 15.08 crores. The said auction purchaser deposited 25 percent of the amount on the date of sale on 30.8.2004 and balance amount of Rs.11.31 crores on 30.9.2004 as per the terms of the sale notice. While that being so, on 7.9.2004, writ petition in W.P. No. 25635 of 2004 was filed by Times Guarantee Limited seeking for the relief of writ of mandamus forbearing the second respondent - the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, from proceeding against the properties set out in the auction sale notice in D.R.C. No. 79 of 2002 by arraying the Industrial Development Bank of India, the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai and the Official Liquidator representing Rajalakshmi Mills Limited as respondents No. 1 to 3 respectively, on the premise that they are the unsecured creditors in a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs by way of discounting of bills of exchange and the debtor Rajalakshmi Mills failed to honour the bills. In spite of the repeated promises, the company Rajalakshmi Mills was unable to pay the amount. Thus, the writ petitioner Times Guarantee Limited filed a company petition in C.P.No. 122 of 1997 under Section 433 of the Companies Act for winding up of the Company. The Company Court passed an order of winding up of the Company on 7.4.2000. The Division Bench in O.S. A. No. 179 of 2001 at the instance of the writ petitioner and in terms of the compromise memo filed by the writ petitioner Times Guarantee Limited and the debtor - Rajalakshmi Mills, passed an order dated 26.6.2001 setting aside the winding up order dated 7.4.2000 and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by way of reimbursement of the money expended by the Official Liquidator within a week from the date of order. In the joint memo filed before the Division Bench, the debtor Rajalakshmi agreed to pay Rs. 50 lakhs on or before 31.7.2001 to the writ petitioner and discharged the Official Liquidator appointed by the Company Court, with a covenant that in the event of default of payment of the amount as agreed by the debtor, the winding up order passed on 7.4.2000 in C.P. No. 122 of 1997 shall stand revived. Again, the Division Bench by its order dated 30.4.2003 in C.M.P. No. 18534 of 2002 revived the order passed by the Company Court dated 17.4.2000 winding up the debtor Rajalakshmi Mills. Thus, the action of the secured creditor Industrial Development Bank of India moving the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 91 of 2000 and obtaining a decree on 28.11.2001 is all against the statutory provisions of the Companies Act. Once the winding up proceedings are initiated before the Company Court, without the leave of the Company Court, no action could be taken by the secured creditors. It is still worse on the part of the secured creditor to move the Debt Recovery Tribunal and proceed against the property mortgaged to it, de hors the provisions of the Companies Act, particularly, when the winding up order is passed and on that basis, obtained an order of interim stay of confirmation of auction sale from this Court on 9.9.2004, i.e., on the date the writ petition was admitted.

2. The auction purchaser, who got himself impleaded as the fourth respondent by order dated 29.9.2004, filed W.V.M.P. No. 1757 of 2004 to vacate the interim order dated 9.9.2004 passed in W.P.M.P. No. 31147 of 2004.

3. While the matters stand thus, the Secretary of Rajalakshmi Mills High