V S MURUGAN Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the letter, dated 23. 8. 2005, on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from issuing fresh tender-cum-auction notification in respect of their secured assets taken symbolic possession from the third respondent and consequently to confirm the bid in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the tender notification, dated 29. 3. 2005 and to allow the writ petition with cost.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as for the respondents. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:

(3.) THE petitioner is a proprietor of the firm M/s. Hari Tex, dealing with scraps, Textile Machineries, Electrical Goods, Motors, Old Machineries and Generators and the said firm has been in existence for over 20 years. The second respondent had issued a tender notification, dated 29. 3. 2005, published in News Daily, on 30. 3. 2005. As per the said notification, the second respondent had invited tenders from the public for sale of the property of the third respondent taken possession under the provisions of the Securitisatioin and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. It was indicated in the said notification that the secured Asset proposed to be sold was taken symbolic possession by the first respondent bank as secured creditor by inviting sealed tenders in "as is where is" condition.