TRIVENI ALLOYS LIMITED Vs. TOLSTOY MARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the records. W. P. No. 4481/2005 has been filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 24. 1. 2005 passed by the second respondent-Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation limited and to restrain respondents 2 to 6 from taking any action under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Securitisation Act' ). W. P. No. 32594/2003 has been filed for a writ of mandamus forbearing respondents 2 to 11 from initiating further proceedings until appeal in Appeal No. 88/2003 dated 17. 1. 2003 on the file of the Hon'ble Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (R-1) is entertained and disposed of.

(2.) WE have in the judgment in W. P. No. 13056 of 2005 etc. batch, decided on 7. 7. 2005 (M/s. Digivision Electronics Ltd. v. Indian Bank), dealt with various arguments raised by the learned counsels for the petitioners in various cases relating to the Securitisation Act and we have dismissed all those petitions. We are, therefore, not dealing with the arguments which have been considered in that judgment.

(3.) IN the present case, leaned counsel for the petitioner has relied on section 41 of the Securitisation Act, which states:-"the enactments specified in the Schedule shall be amended in the manner specified therein. "