Advocates:
['M/s V Jayachandran', '', 'S Jothis Muppidathi', 'A Tamilvanan', 'M/S M L GANESH', 'S ARUN KUMAR', '', 'M/S P VEERARAGHAVAN', 'M G RAMANATHAN', 'SARAVABHAUMAN ASSO', 'M/S P VEERARAGHAVANM G RAMANATHANMR SARAVABHAUMAN ASSO']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :17-03-2020

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

W.P.No.22701 OF 2019

Semalaiappan

...Petitioner

-vs-

1. The Chief Manager & Authorised Officer,

Andhra Bank, Coimbatore Main Branch,

17, Mill Road, Coimbatore-641 002.

2. The Chief Manager & Authorised Officer,

Punjab National Bank, A.G.M.Branch,

774, Oppanakara Street,

Coimbatore-641 001.

3. The Branch Head,

Punjab National Bank,

Park Road Branch,

Tiruppur.

4.Loganathan

...Respondents

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the

respondents 1 and 2 to take measures against the primary

security in the nature of mortgage and hypothecation of the

assets of M/s.Rohini Textiles Industries (P) Ltd., under the

provision of the SARFAESI Act, being the assets more than

sufficient to recover the entire liabilities of the said

company, without disturbing any of the personal immovable

properties of the guarantors.

For Petitioner : Mr.Om Prakash,

Senior Counsel,

for Mr.V.Jayachandran.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

For Respondent 1 : Mr.P.Veeraraghavan

For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.M.L.Ganesh

For Respondent 4 : Mr.S.Mukunth,

for M/s.Sarvabhauman

Associates.

ORDER

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

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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 o