STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. MIDFILED INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned senior counsel Sri E Madan Mohan Rao for petitioner (State Bank of India) in WP 29648 of 2021 and in WP No. 9375 of 2019, learned senior counsel Sri L Ravi Chander appearing for Securities and Exchange Board of India Ltd (SEBI) i.e., second respondent in WP No. 29648 of 2021 and fifth respondent in WP No.9375 of 2019, and learned standing counsel Dr.B.Manoj Kumar for 9th respondent in WP 9375 of 2019 (EPF Organisation).

(2.) In W.P.No.29648 of 2021, petitioner-Bank is aggrieved by the various measures initiated by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) including freezing of the particular property, which according to the petitioner-Bank, is secured asset and the Registration Department of the State of Telangana issuing prohibitory orders on registration of any transactions. In W.P.No.9375 of 2019, petitionerBank is aggrieved by the various measures taken by the Securities and Exchange Board of India, Employees State Insurance Corporation Limited (ESIC), and Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO).

(3.) The question for consideration is whether in terms of Ss. 26-E and 35 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'Act, 2002') are the relevant provisions of the Acts governing SEBI, ESI Corporation and Employees Provident Fund Organization, which entity shall have first charge on the concerned property to recover the amounts due.