The main legal point established in the judgment is that the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, renders a request for a writ of mandamus unsustainable.

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

Heard Mr. S. Rajasekar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M. Devaraj, learned counsel for the respondent-bank.

2. M/s. Titanium Tantalum Products Ltd, a firm along with it directors and legal representatives of the founder-director, have joined together and sought for a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondent bank from bringing the secured assets, both movables and immovable properties of the petitioners for public e-auction sale on 07.09.2016, or on subsequent dates and consequently, prayed for a direction to the respondent bank to consider the request of the first petitioner company for restructuring the loan.

3. Brief facts leading to the writ petition are that M/s. Titanium Tantalum Products Ltd was incorporated on 14.9.1980 and it is a multi-product and technology company with focus in the field of chemical process equipment design, engineering, manufacturing, erection/commissioning and services featuring exotic metals and electrochemical technologies. The company directly employs 170 employees and indirectly many through, its sub-vendor program.

4. The petitioner-company availed loan for its day-to-day operations in the year 2001, which was periodically renewed by the respondent-bank. Due to global recession and undue delay in infrastructure projects, petitioner company faced deficit cash flow and could not service the loan. The debt was classified as Non Performing Account (NPA) on 28.9.2013 and a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for Rs.59.06 Crores, was issued. The Bank filed O.A.No.156 of 2014 under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts due to the Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993, for recovery of a sum of Rs.51.54 Crores.

5. The petitioners have further contended that vide letter dated 30.9.2014, respondent-bank, acknowledged the efforts of the company, in joining hands with Private Equity Investors, in short PE Investors, to infuse equity worth Rs.60 Crores, to ease the cash flow. On 03.03.2013, a Share Purchase Agreement was also entered into with PE Investor Company and the respondent allowed "hold on operations" and appointed M/s. Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) for Techno Economic Viability Study (Restructuring) to examine the proposal submitted by the petitioner company on 26.2.2015 for restructuring. In December 2015, a detailed 149 Pages report was prepared by M/s. Dun & Bradstreet, thoroughly analysing the critical aspects of the economic viability of the petitioner company and concluded that the process for restructuring is viable. The bank was keen on initial payment of Rs.5 Cores, when the first tranche of the fund, was received from the overseas investor. But suddenly, demanded Rs.3 Crores more from the petitioner company to be raised from its own source, contrary to the earlier arrangement by which the respondent-bank was supposed to give a letter of intent, sanctioning restructuring scheme of loan to infuse confidence in the mind of PE Investor to bring in equity capital. The writ petitioners have contended that the above was the position in March 2016. However, even before the petitioner company could react, the respondent-bank by its letter dated 18.5.2016, rejected the proposal of restructuring and starting initiating drastic steps in a vindictive manner against the property and personal rights of the petitioners. The respondent-bank moved an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, for freezing the passport of the petitioners 2 to 6, and also issued possession notice dated 27.6.2016 under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, after 31 months from the date of demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. The same was followed by an auction notice dated 30.07.2016, to sell all the secured assets by public e-action notice dated 7.9.2016.

6. The writ petitioners have contended that the properties are worth more than Rs.120 Crores and sought to be sold in public auction, by fixing a very low reserve price of Rs.57.46 Crores. They h