(1.) Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 27.09.2016 in S.A. No.256 of 2013 passed by the 2nd respondent Debts Recovery Tribunal -III, Chennai, confirming the order dated 10.09.2013 made in CMP No.825 of 2013 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam.
(2.) On 08.11.2016, we have passed the following order:-
(3.) The first respondent bank has been put on notice. Inviting the attention of this Court, to the location of the mortgaged property, at Thanjavur, which is not within the territorial jurisdiction of a Metropolitan City and the specific ground raised before the second respondent Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai in S.A. No.256 of 2013, wherein the petitioner has specifically averred that as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court (Madurai Bench) in the case of K. Arokiaraj and Ors., v. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur, Virdhunagar and Ors., reported in 2013 (6) MLJ 641 , that the District Magistrate, Thanjavur alone is the competent authority to pass orders under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and not the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the innocuous reply of the respondent Bank, not touching upon the jurisdictional aspect and further inviting the attention of this Court to the decision of Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court (Madurai Bench) in the case of K. Arokiaraj and Ors., in particular, paragraph No.35 and the subsequent decision of a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of T.C. Ramadoss & anr. v. Chief Manager and Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Chennai & Ors., reported in (2015) 2 MLJ 591 , rendered on identical circumstances, with reference to the legal preposition of respective over ruling, Mr. R. Chandrasudan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai has failed to consider the said preposition of law, in proper perspective.