JEYARAM Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER, TAMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners have been in litigation with the first and second respondents for quite some time. They have borrowed a loan in the year 2007 and thereafter recovery proceedings had been initiated in manner known to law. Further, the Debts Recovery Tribunal had also passed an order crystalising the amount due and calling upon the petitioners to pay the amount due. Thereafter, proceedings under Sec. 13(4) of SARFAESI Act was also initiated. Questioning the procedure adopted and also the orders passed, the petitioners had landed out before the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing S.A.362 of 2021. It is still pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

(2.) Since S.A.362 of 2021 is pending, it would be extremely inappropriate on our part to examine the rival contentions placed before us by Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned Standing Counsel, who had taken notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.

(3.) One of the main grievances raised by Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar is that the Debts Recovery Tribunal has adjourned the matter to 7/7/2021 and that according to him, is the disadvantage of the petitioners due to the fact that further proceedings are being continued by the respondents. It is however urged by Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned Counsel for the respodent Bank that substantial subsequent proceedings have been initiated by orders being passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and consequential orders of taking possession also being passed.