ORDER

P.N.PRAKASH, J.

This contempt petition has been filed seeking to punish D.Sivasubramanian, the Authorised Officer of the 2nd respondent Bank for allegedly committing criminal contempt.

2. Admittedly, the petitioner had borrowed around a sum of Rs.92.80 lakhs as term loan and Rs.1.35 crores as working capital from the Indian Bank, Ram Nagar Branch, Coimbatore, sometime in the year 2010 and later, in the year 2013, the petitioner's account became a Non- Performing Asset (NPA) and recovery action was initiated by the bank against the petitioner under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity “the SARFAESI Act”).

3. The petitioner approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II (for brevity “the DRT-II”), Chennai, in S.A.No.240 of 2019 for certain reliefs against the bank.

4. The DRT-II, Chennai passed an order dated 02.07.2019, the operative portion of which, is the fulcrum of this contempt proceedings and the same reads as under:

“There shall be an interim stay of physical dispossession of the applicant from the application schedule mentioned property for a period of 30 days except by taking recourse to the procedure contemplated under SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder subject to the condition that the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) as follows:

(i) Rs.25,00,000/- within one week from the date of this order;

(ii) remaining Rs.25,00,000/- within 21 days thereafter;

(iii) In default to comply with any one of the above conditions (a) & (b), the interim stay shall stand vacated automatically.

The petitioners shall take notice to the respondents and file proof of service by next hearing date. Call on

01.08.2019.” ..... (emphasis supplied)

5. Subsequently, the said interim order was extended from time to time and on 13.09.2019, the interim order was “extended till further orders”

as the bank remained ex parte.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that the bank approached the District Collector, Coimbatore, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, for taking possession of the property that was mortgaged by the petitioner, but, did not prosecute the same and withdrew it on 21.01.2020.

7. While that being so, it is the further case of the petitioner that the bank filed a fresh application in Crl.M.P.No.1152 of 2019 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (for brevity “the CJM), Coimbatore, without disclosing the filing of a similar petition before the District Collector, Coimbatore and the interim order that was passed by the DRT-II, Chennai, in S.A.No.240 of 2019 on 02.07.2019.

8. The learned CJM, Coimbatore, by order dated 02.01.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.1152 of 2019, appointed an Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the mortgaged property.

9. Alleging that the bank has committed an act of criminal contempt, the petitioner filed a petition for consent under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for brevity “the CC Act”) before the Advocate General, State of Tamil Nadu and the learned Advocate General, by order dated 04.01.2021, has granted consent.

10. Consequently, this contempt petition was taken on file and statutory notice was issued to the respondents.

11. Sivasubramanian, second respondent, has filed a detailed counter affidavit dated 01.06.2021 refuting the allegations of the petitioner.

12. It is the defence of the bank that the petitioner had failed to comply with the deposit directions that were issued by the DRT-II, Chennai, in S.A.No.240 of 2019. The bank has also stated that they had approached the District Collector, Coimbatore, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by submitting an application on 2.12.2016 and the Collector did not pass any order thereon for about four years; however, after the judgment of the Supreme Court in The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank Vs. D.Visalakshi and Another1, wherein, it has been held that the bank can approach either the District Col