The court dismissed the writ petition as the petitioner failed to comply with prior court orders, emphasizing obligations to meet financial conditions imposed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

1. W.P(MD). No.22929 of 2021 has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to extend the period of time granted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai by its order dated 13.10.2021 in S.A.No.454 of 2021 by directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.70 lakhs to the first respondent Bank.

2. The petitioner is a Textile Unit and they had borrowed a sum of Rs.1 crore from the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation as a working capital facility. A sum of Rs.70 lakhs was disbursed on 16.11.2016 and another sum of Rs.30 lakhs was disbursed on 25.11.2016. The property which is in dispute, was offered as a collateral security. Since the petitioner did not make any regular payments and the cheques furnished by the writ petitioner got dishonored, the first respondent corporation had initiated proceedings under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The respondent Corporation had issued a demand notice under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 07.02.2018. The petitioner had issued two cheques in order to settle the amount. However, those cheques were dishonoured. Hence, the respondent Corporation was constrained to issue another demand notice under S.13(2) of SARFAESI Act on 25.05.2018. For the said demand notice, again the petitioner issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.9,25,000/- and the same was also dishonored. Hence, the respondent Corporation had issued possession notice under S.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 14.08.2018. The first auction sale notice was issued on 22.12.2018 and the same was challenged by the borrower before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in S.A.No. 73 of 2019. Though an order of interim stay was granted by the Tribunal, the stay got vacated, in view of the non compliance of the condition imposed in the said order. The cheques that were issued in compliance of the conditional order were also dishonored.

4. A second auction notice was issued on 30.05.2019 which was challenged by the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in S.A.No.354 of 2019. An interim order was granted on 26.06.2019 on certain condition. Except the first installment, other conditions were not fulfilled and hence, the stay got vacated. The respondent Corporation has taken physical possession of the property on 12.12.2019. The third auction notice was issued on 11.02.2020 which was challenged by the writ petitioner in S.A.No.111 of 2020. Again an order of interim stay of confirmation of sale was granted on condition that the petitioner should deposit certain amount in three installments. Except the first installment, the condition was not complied with by the petitioner and the stay got vacated.

5. Since the petitioner had not complied with a conditional order and the cheques issued by him towards compliance of the conditional order got dishonored, the fourth sale notice was issued on 14.01.2021 fixing the date of sale as on 15.02.2021. The sale was conducted on 15.02.2021 and the second respondent was declared as a successful bidder and the same was confirmed on 18.02.2021.

6. After confirmation of the sale, the petitioner had filed W.P(MD).No. 3860 of 2021 challenging the auction notice dated 13.01.2021. This Court was pleased to grant interim order on 01.03.2021 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.25 lakhs within a period of four weeks and the same was complied with. In the said order, the respondent corporation was permitted to receive the balance sale consideration from the second respondent herein. Accordingly, the entire sale consideration was paid by the auction purchaser on 04.03.2021. The writ petition was finally dismissed on 06.10.