S K R DEVARAJ Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this court with the grievance that M/s.Vetrivel Enterprises represented by the second respondent had availed certain loans from the respondent bank. Sometime during July 2011, one Thiru.Anburaj, Thiru.Rangaraj and his wife Premalatha came to the residence of the petitioner. The said Anburaj and others impressed the petitioner that arrangement would be made for a loan with the said Vetrivel Enterprises. Believing their words, the petitioner, alongwith his friend one Muthukumar, accompanied the said Anburaj and Rangaraj alongwith the copies of the title deeds and on the promise that they will arrange for the loans, they were made to execute certain documents purported to be agreement of guarantee, memorandum of deposit of title deeds and also letter of acknowledgment of debt and security for the loan availed by M/s.Vetrivel Enterprises. However, he was not paid any amount. Thereafter, a demand notice dated 16.11.2011 was issued to the petitioner followed by the possession notice dated 16.2.2012 and also a sale notice dated 13.3.2012 for the loan availed by M/s.Vetrivel Enterprises.

(2.) ON coming to know that fraud has been played and the petitioner was made to execute the documents, he lodged a complaint which is pending. In the meantime, the petitioner also filed S.A.No.49 of 2012 challenging the demand notice dated 16.11.2011, possession notice dated 16.2.2012 and tender cum auction notice dated 13.3.2012 on the ground that they are ab initio void and they are tainted with fraud and misrepresentation.

(3.) AT the time the miscellaneous petition is listed for hearing, by consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. We have heard Ms.Ananda Gomathy Sivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.S.Krishnan, Senior Counsel for the first respondent.