On receipt of the said amount from the Writ Petitioner Bank, the 2nd Respondent has to settle the dues immediately within short span of period and if there are any lapses or negligence in settling the amount, the officials of the 2nd Respondent Organization must be held personally liable, as the delay would cause not only injustice but should be construed as dereliction of duties. In respect of the additional supplementary claim filed by the 2nd Respondent, it is left open to the 2nd Respondent to approach the Liquidator, who in turn is at liberty to adjudicate and take a decision on merits and in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order bearing No.TN/SLM/16681/Recovery/2011 dt.18/01/11 on the file of the respondents 1 & 2, quash the same.)

The Writ on hand is filed to quash the order dated 18.01.2011, passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer.

2. The Writ Petitioner is the Authorized Officer Attorney of Indian Overseas Bank. The Petitioner challenges the order of the 2nd Respondent declaring the Writ Petitioner as a “Deemed Defaulter” and directing the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs. 8,20,91,568/- on or before 2nd February, 2011.

3. The 3rd Respondent M/s. Uma Maheswari Mills Limited (Company Liquidation), availed various credit facilities and loans such as Open Cash Credit Limit, Term Loan, Purchase of Bills under letter of credit limit, etc., from the petitioner. The factory land and the building, entire stocks and part of plant and machinery belonging to the said Company have been mortgaged/hypothecated to the petitioner to secure the dues in the said loan accounts. The charges over the said secured assets have been duly registered with the Registrar of Companies.

4. The 3rd Respondent Company defaulted in repayment of the dues and consequently, the loan accounts become NPA. As on 01.10.2002, a total sum of Rs. 21,71,77,747/- was due from the said Company besides other charges. Thus, the petitioner bank invoked the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”] and issued a demand notice on the company on 01.10.2002 calling upon to pay the said sum of Rs. 21,71,77,747/- together with interest from 01.10.2002 and other charges. The Company filed Writ Petition No. 32932 of 2003 challenging the said notice and the same was dismissed on 18.06.2004.

5. Meanwhile, the Company made a reference before the BIFR under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Company (Special Provision) Act, 1985. The reference was taken on file in case No. 250 of 2002, and the Company was declared sick on 08.11.2002. One of the secured creditors, namely IDBI was appointed as the Operating Agency. After considering the case on merits, BIFR formed a prima facie opinion to wind up the Company U/s. 20(1) of SICA Act and vide in order dated 22.09.2003 forwarded the opinion of the High Court of Madras for further action. Pursuant to the opinion, the Company Court took the said opinion on file in CP No. 28 of 2004, served on the Writ Petitioner in the Company Petition.

6. The Company filed an appeal against the order dated 22.09.2003 before the Appellant Authority for industrial and financial reconstruction which was taken on file in Appeal No. 333 and 440 of 2003. The said appeals were dismissed as infructuous on 17.05.2004 and 26.07.2005 respectively.

7. The petitioners states that the properties of the Company in liquidation were brought for sale through Official Liquidator on 19.08.2008, 07.04.2010 etc. However, the said sale deed did not take place for one reason or other viz., order obtained by the promoters of the Company in liquidation on the false assurance of revival scheme, want of bidders etc.

8. As far as the other facts and circumstances enumerated in the Writ Petition are concerned those aspects with reference to the transactions of the Company with the bank loan are irrelevant and the present Writ Petition is filed challenging the Impugned Order dated 08.01.2011 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Organization.

9. Thus, this Court is not inclined to consider those facts, which all are not relevant to the Impugned Order and the loan transactions of the Petitioner Bank of the Company in liquidation. Thus, the Writ Petition confined in respect of the facts and circumstances aroused on account of passing of the Impugned Order by the Employees Provident Fund Organization in