BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.04.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P(MD)No.9749 of 2024 State Bank of India, represented by its Chief Manager, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch, No.377/1, Dr.Nanjappa Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. ... Petitioner vs

1.The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Tuticorin District.

2.M/s.PSV Sea Foods Private Limited, Tuticorin.

3.P.S.Velayudham

4.V.Manickarasi

5.V.Ramasankari ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to dispose of the application filed under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act on 21.05.2019 within a time frame.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.L.Ganesh For R1 : Mr.S.Saji Bino Special Government Pleader *****

ORDER

(Order of this Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner/secured creditor to direct the first respondent to dispose of the application filed under Section 14 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”) on

21.05.2019 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2.By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. Notice to the respondents 2 to 5 is dispensed with in view of the order that is proposed to be passed.

3.According to the petitioner Bank, they have sanctioned overall credit limit of Rs.7,61,46,456.78/- towards cash credit and term loan facilities to the second respondent private limited company for which, the respondents 2 to 5, who are borrowers/guarantors and also mortgagors, have mortgaged immovable properties as security. The respondents 2 to 5 had executed memorandum of deposit of title deeds and submitted original title deeds to the petitioner Bank. Since the respondents 2 to 5 defaulted in repayment of the loan amount, the loan account was classified as non- performing asset on 27.06.2017 and proceedings under SARFAESI Act was initiated.

4.The petitioner Bank had issued demand notice under Section 13(2)

of SARFAESI Act on 03.01.2018 calling upon the respondents 2 to 5 to repay the outstanding loan amount of Rs.7,61,46,456.78/- within a period of sixty days and since there was no response, the petitioner Bank had issued possession notice under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act on 20.06.2018 by taking symbolic possession of the property. Pursuant to which, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act before the first respondent on 21.05.2019 seeking for assistance to take physical possession of the secured properties.

5.Even though such application was filed as early as on 21.05.2019, it seems that the first respondent till date had not passed any orders to enable the secured creditor to take physical possession of the secured asset. The first respondent instead of passing order, has been going on sending notice to the borrowers asking them to settle the loan amount and had been asking for queries from the petitioner Bank, which has been replied then and there. Since the first respondent has not complied with the mandatory provisions and has failed to pass any orders in the application filed under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, the above Writ Petition has been filed.

6.Mr.M.L.Ganesh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the averments made in the affidavit contended that when proper proceedings has been initiated under SARFAESI Act and the petitioner Bank being the secured creditor has filed an application under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, the first respondent had not followed the mandatory provisions and is simply keeping the application pending without passing any orders, but has been only insisting the borrowers to repay the loan amount for which, the first respondent does not have any authority.

7.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first responde