ORDER

Krishnan Ramasamy,J.

Petitioner is one of the guarantors for the loan amount extended to M/s.Rohini Textiles Industries (P) Ltd., in short ''the Company'', by the respondent banks. Apart from the petitioner, his wife, son and daughter-in- law also stood as guarantors for repayment of the loan amount of the respondent banks.

2. The respondent banks sanctioned a loan of Rs.120.00 crores to the company. To secure the said loan, the company also provided primary securities of its fixed assets valued at Rs.141.83 crores as on 13.03.2015 and further assets were procured using enhanced financial assistance extended by the first respondent. The primary securities of all the Units as on 31.03.2016 were at Rs.249.00 crores. Therefore, the petitioner contended that the banks are fully secured by the primary securities in the nature of private properties of the promoters.

3. Due to age factor, the petitioner was retired from the directorship of the company and the company was left with the management of his son and daughter-in-law, and the wife of the petitioner as a nominal Director.

4. In September,2016, the petitioner's son and daughter-in-law tried to sell the SIPCOT Processing House located at the Industrial Estate, Perundurai, to reduce the burden and ease out the pressure, as the market conditions for textile were not conducive. The fourth respondent showed interest to buy the said Unit for a consideration of Rs.100.00 crores. Though the value of the machineries and other assets of the said Unit was worth Rs.167.45 crores as on 31.03.2016, the company had agreed to sell the said Unit to the fourth respondent for Rs.100.00 crores, on his assurance of payment of 13% per annum interest for the said amount till the amount is paid to the respondent banks, apart from relieving the securities given by the company and its guarantors.

5. Since both the fourth respondent and the son of the petitioner agreed for sale of the SIPCOT Unit for a sum of Rs.100.00 crores, the discussions held on 14.12.2016 were minuted and duly consented by both the parties. On 15.12.2016, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into, incorporating various terms and conditions. As both the parties agreed, the son of the petitioner approached the first and second respondent banks for grant of their approval for sale of the property for a sum of Rs.100.00 crores. However, the banks refused to grant permission for sale of the said property for a sum of Rs.100.00 crores. Subsequently, the banks invoked recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, due to non-

payment of instalments of the loan amount, as agreed to by the company.

6. On account of good relations between the son of the petitioner and the fourth respondent, the son of the petitioner allowed the fourth respondent to run the SIPCOT Industrial Unit at Perundurai, but the banks strongly made an objection for the proposal of sale. Thereafter, when the son of the petitioner tried to re-enter into the SIPCOT Industrial Unit, the fourth respondent and his uncle Auditor Murugesan lashed out life threat against him. Therefore, the son of the petitioner committed suicide on

23.03.2017 and a police complaint was also filed in that regard. 7. Mr.Om Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, appearing on behalf of Mr.V.Jayachandran, has submitted that when the respondent banks have objected the move of Memorandum of Understanding, dated 15.12.2016, entered into between the son of the petitioner and the fourth respondent, it is the bounden duty of the said banks to take over all the hypothecated machineries and other assets, which were worth more than Rs.167.00 crores as on 31.03.2016, and, without doing so, the banks have negotiated once again with the fourth respondent and sold the said SIPCOT property for Rs.101.50 crores with 100% funding by the third respondent bank. He would further submit that the banks colluded with the fourth respondent and sold the property for a throw-away price.

8. The learned Senior