ORDER

The petitioner herein, who is the Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, has filed this Writ Petition to quash the order passed by the fourth respondent dated 02.11.2021 and consequently direct the fourth respondent to raise the order of attachments dated 20.03.2017, 09.10.2017, 06.12.2017 and 09.07.2018 on the Mortgaged Property / Secured Asset being Door Nos.205 and 205A in T.S.No.332/3 part in Ward No.35, Block No.9, George Road, Tuticorin.

2. The petitioner is a non-banking finance company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and notified as a financial institution under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner is a secured creditor and the subject property being Door Nos.205 and 205A in T.S.No.332/3 part in Ward No.35, Block No.9, George Road, Tuticorin is the secured asset of the petitioner. The borrowers, R.Thanabalan (Sri Sivasankar Timber and Tiles) and T.Sathish Kumar (Sivasankar Traders) had availed loan of Rs.2,30,00,000/- executed loan agreement dated 29.01.2015, agreeing to repay the said sum in 122 and 104 EMIs of Rs.1,44,661/- and Rs.3,50,231/-. The borrowers had availed loan under variable rate of interest. At the time of sanction, it was 13.50% and the present rate of interest is 14.15%. The borrowers had also created equitable mortgage over the secured asset by deposit of title deeds on 19.02.2015 registered as Document No.190/2015 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Tuticorin Joint II.

3. As per the loan agreement, if there is any default in EMI, the loan would be declared as NPA. In this case, the borrowers had defaulted and their loan account declared as NPA on 05.08.2016. As secured creditor, the petitioner initiated recovery proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act by causing demand notice, under Section 13(2) of the Act, dated 30.09.2016, calling upon the borrowers to discharge the debt within 60 days. This notice was duly served on the borrowers on 10.10.2016. The borrowers failed to comply with the demand made in 13(2) notice dated 30.09.2016. Under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner took symbolic possession of the secured asset on 04.01.2017 in strict compliance of Rule 8 of Security Enforcement Rules. The petitioner was facing resistance from the borrowers. Hence, the petitioner filed appropriate application before the District Magistrate under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act. The District Magistrate/Collector passed orders on 16.11.2018 directing the revenue officials to take possession of the secured asset and hand over the same to the petitioner. The actual possession of the secured asset was handed over to the petitioner on 03.03.2020.

4. The petitioner thereafter proceeded further for recovery of debt and contemplated sale of the secured asset as mandated under Rule 8 and 9 of the Security Enforcement Rules. Thereafter, on verification of the Encumbrance Certificate, it was found that the entries pertaining to order of attachment dated 20.03.2017, 09.10.2017, 06.12.2017 and 09.07.2018 by the Income Tax Department over the subject property reflected. Immediately, the petitioner caused a detailed representation dated 24.03.2021 to the third respondent narrating the facts and state of affairs with a request to raise the order of attachment enclosing requisite documents. The said representation dated 24.03.2021 was acknowledged by the third respondent on 26.03.2021. The third respondent neither replied nor complied with the request of the petitioner. The third respondent was silent and thereafter, on 22.04.2021, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 11(6) of II Schedule of the Income Tax Act seeking to raise the order of attachment dated 20.03.2017, 09.10.2017, 06.12.2017 and 09.07.2018.

5. On 16.07.2021, the fourth respondent sent a communication to the petitioner to produce the copies of documents enlisted in the communication. The petitioner submitted all the doc