LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-749

CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE: DEBENTURE TRUSTEE DEPARTMENT, EXECUTOR Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS

Decided On February 05, 2018
Canara Bank, Head Office: Debenture Trustee Department, Executor Appellant
V/S
The District Collector, Office Of The District Collector And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Canara Bank, Debenture Trustee Department, Executor, Trustee and Taxation Section, Bangalore - 560 027, petitioner herein, has filed the instant writ petition for a Mandamus, directing the respondents herein, to treat the certified copy of the registered Assignment Deed dated 23.03.1978 and the Certified copy of the Sale Deed bearing Document No.4532/P41/2009 executed in favour of Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Company dated 29.05.2009, as sufficient documents and to dispose of the Application pending under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, to take physical possession of the property mortgaged by the petitioner.

(2.) Supporting the prayer sought for, the petitioner has contended that the said deed of Assignment dated 23.03.1978 was executed between Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (SIDCO) in favour of the Company. From 1.6.74 onwards, besides maintenance of the developed plots, other estates were transferred by the Government under G.O.Ms.No.720, Ind.(Spl.) dated 17.5.1974 to State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited, (SIPCOT). By another G.O.Ms.No.959, Industries Department, dated 23.7.76, estates were further transferred to SIDCO from 1.8.76, as an agent of the Government. The company had applied for assignment of the developed plot No.60(SP) at Ambattur, for construction of buildings and erection of machinery and equipment, for the manufacture of photographic sanitized materials which was approved by SIDCO.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to submit the original documents for verification and that the petitioner submitted the originals of all the documents listed above, except Items 5,7,9,11,24 and the BIFR Order. It was clearly explained to the Tahsildar, Thiruvallur, the 2nd respondent herein, that the petitioner was in possession of the following original documents and failed to submit the same by oversight: