JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Original Side Appeals in O.S.A.Nos.355 to 357 of 2013 filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1/11 of Original Side Rules against the order of this Court, dated 12.09.2013, in Company Application Nos.163 to 165 of 2011 respectively in Company Application Nos.1114 & 1115 of 2010 in Company Petition No.265 of 2002.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned G.O.(Ms) No.59, Industries (MID.1) Department, dated 04.03.2016, issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent not to disturb the petitioner on the possession of alleged land.)

Common judgement:

S.S. Sundar, J.

1. All the three Original Side Appeals in O.S.A.Nos.355 to 357 of 2013 are directed against the order of learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 12.09.2013, in Company Application Nos.163 to 165 of 2011. The 1st respondent in Company Application Nos.163 to 165 of 2011 is the appellant in all the three Original Side Appeals.

2. The writ petition in W.P.No.4092 of 2019 is filed during the pendency of the Original Side Appeals, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus to quash the impugned Government Order vide G.O.(Ms) No.59, Industries (MID.1) Department, dated 04.03.2016, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, through Secretary to Government, Industries Department, declaring the transfer of 268.38 Acres of land by way of mortgage to various banks without prior permission of Government as null and void and forfeiting the land as penalty by invoking the provision under Section 44-A[2] of Land Acquisition Act.

3. Though the Original Side Appeals and the writ petition arise out of different cause of action, the appellant in the appeals and the petitioner in the writ petition have raised a few issues which are common and hence, the Original Side Appeals and the writ petition are disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The appellant herein, who is also the writ petitioner, namely, M/s.Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., is hereinafter referred to as “M/s.ARCIL”. The 1st respondent in the writ petition, who is the 3rd respondent in the appeals, is hereinafter referred to as “State” or “Government”. The 2nd respondent in the appeals, who is also the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, is hereinafter referred to as “M/s.SPIC Petro Chemicals Ltd.” The 1st respondent in the appeals, who is the 4th respondent in the writ petition, is hereinafter referred to as “M/s.CPCL”.

5. Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of these appeals and the writ petition may be summarized as follows:

5.1. The appellant/writ petitioner-M/s.ARCIL is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and registered as a securitization and reconstruction company under Section 3 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act” for brevity). The appellant''s business is to take over the debts of Companies from Banks and Financial Institutions and to step into the shoes of lending institutions to exercise all rights and liabilities of the lending institutions with respect to the debts assigned to it in terms of the provisions of Section 5(4) of SARFAESI Act.

5.2. M/s.CPCL (formerly known as Madras Refineries Limited), the 1st respondent in the appeal who is the 4th respondent in the writ petition, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 17.01.1989 with M/s.Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Limited (“M/s.SPIC” for brevity) for floating a Public Limited Company as a Joint Venture to implement a project, for which the Government of India had agreed to grant licence. The name of the Joint Venture Company to be formed was “National Aromatics and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd.” and the project was referred to as “AROCHEM”.

5.3. By an order dated 16.09.1