BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21/02/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD).No. 10991 of 2005 S. Ramamoorthy ... Petitioner Versus The Regional Manager/Authorised Officer, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Madurai Regional Office, Plot No.3, Vaigai Colony, Annanagar, Madurai-20. ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the files of the respondent pertaining to his proceedings bearing No.TIIC/MDU/RO/SAR-03/2004-05 dated 26.10.2005 issued by the respondent and quash the same. !For Petitioner ... Mr. S.C.Herald Singh ^For Respondent ... Mr.Jayesh B. Dolia :ORDER
Heard Mr.S.C.Herald Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.Jayesh B. Dolia, the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. By consent of counsel on either side the writ petition itself is taken
up for final hearing.
3. The writ petition has been filed against the impugned order issued
under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by which the respondent demanded
a total sum of Rupees five crores as payable by the petitioner.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was under BIFR and
subsequently the Canara Bank was appointed as a operating Agency for which, the
Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment corporation Limited has also given a consent.
5.Now it is informed that pursuant to the notice given under Section 13
(2) of the Act, the petitioner has also given a reply on 24.11.2005.
Considering the said reply, the respondent has passed an order on 25.11.2005
rejecting the same under Section 13(3)(a) of the Act. As laid down by this Court
in Digivision Electronics Ltd., Registered Office at No.A5 & 6, Industrial
Estate, Gunidy, Chennai -versus- Indian bank rep. by its Deputy General Manager,
Head Office, 31, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1 and another, reported in 2005(3) CTC
513, while dealing with Section 13(2) of the Act, the Division Bench has held
that notice under Section 13(2) is only a show-cause notice and there cannot be
any writ petition against the same as premature.
6.Apart from that as stated above, in the present case, an order has also
been passed rejecting the reply under Section 13(3)(a) of the Act. In such
circumstances, the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed,
It is always open to the petitioner to move an appeal under Section 17 of the
Act.
7.In view of the same, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
There is no order as to cost. Consequently the connected W.P.M.P.No.11716 of
2005 is also dismissed.
mvk
To
The Regional Manager/Authorised Officer,
Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd.,
Madurai Regional Office,
Plot No.3, Vaigai Colony,
Annanagar,
Madurai-20.