S. Rajeswaran, J.

1. This Company Application has been filed by the Applicant/Petitioner to stay the public auction to be held by the respondent/Corporation Bank on 9.2.2007.

2. Company Application No. 188/2007 has been filed by the petitioner-company in C.P.No. 190/2006 to stay the public auction to be held by the Corporation Bank, who was impleaded as the respondent as per order dated 8.2.2007 in C.A.No. 214/2007.

3. The brief facts are as under:

The applicant-company filed C.P.No. 190/2006 seeking the voluntary winding up under Sections 433(a) and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent-bank who is the secured creditor of the applicant-company initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter called the 'SARPAESI Act', and the respondent took possession of the immovable properties of the Company which consists of the land and factory including the plant and machinery vide possession notice dated 31.1.2006. The respondent-bank is now ready to sell the above mentioned property by public auction on 9.2.2007 at 12.30 p.m., by fixing the reserve price at Rs. 20 lakhs. The respondent bank on an earlier occasion tried to sell the property by public auction, but it could not do so as the bank tried to sell the property in bits and pieces. Notwithstanding such an aborted attempt earlier the respondent-bank has now issued another notice for public auction on 9.2.2087 on the same terms as that of the previous auction.

4. According to the applicant's company they appointed an independent registered valuer, who valued the entire property at Rs. 1,08,14,982/-. Therefore the reserve price now fixed by the bank is too low and if the entire asset of the Company is sold as a single unit the auction is likely to fetch a sum which is far greater than what may be obtained by selling the property in bits and pieces. Hence they filed the above Application to stay the public auction to be held by the bank on 9.2.2007.

5. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondent-bank wherein a preliminary objection as to jurisdiction was raised by them. According to the respondent-bank, the proviso to Section 13(9) of SARFEASI Act deals with the situation arising out of winding up and any action taken under the SARFEASI Act cannot be questioned before the Company court as SARFEASI Act is a special enactment. Further it was stated in the counter that the auction was already conducted, the successful bidder has also deposited 25% of the bid amount.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. A.L. Somayaji, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent-bank. I have also perused the documents and the judgments referred to by them in support of their submisions.

7. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the applicant-company can very well maintain this Application before this company-court and the jurisdiction of the company-court under the Companies Act which is also a special enactment is not ousted. He further submitted that in view of the valuation arrived at by the independent valuer at Rs. 1 crore and above, the auction sale by fixing a reserve price of Rs. 20 lakhs does not reflect the real market value of the property. He further pointed out that selling the property in bits and pieces is also unwarranted and the property would fetch a greater sum if it is sold as a single unit.

8. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that in view of Sections 34 and 35 of the SARFEASI Act the above Application is not maintainable, and Section 13 of the SARFEASI Act, is a self-contained Code with regard to enforcement of security interest, which takes care of the cases of Company in liquidation also and anyone aggrieved by any of the measures referred under Section 13(4) of the SARPEASI Act can file an Appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17(1) of the SARFEASI Act and a further Appeal is also provided under the Deb