1. While the Indian Bank has come up with the first writ petition challenging a provisional order of attachment passed by the Joint Director of Enforcement, the Company whose property was so attached has come up with the second writ petition challenging the provisional attachment well as a consequent complaint lodged with the Adjudicating Authority.

2. I have heard Mr.M.Balachandar, learned counsel for the petitioner in the first writ petition, Mr.R.Yashodhvardhan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in the second writ petition and Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

3. As stated above, the petitioner in the first writ petition is the Indian Bank and the petitioner in the second writ petition is a company, which borrowed monies from the Indian Bank. The factual matrix, out of which the present writ petitions arises, is as follows:-

(i) The petitioner in the second writ petition was sanctioned 3 term loans, under a sanction ticket dated 2.1.2006 by the Indian Bank. With the money so advanced by the Indian Bank, the petitioner in the second writ petition, hereinafter referred to a