2021 (1) TMI 1118

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....8, Mr.H.Velavadhas for R.9 COMMON ORDER (M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) As both the writ petitions involve the same issue and the second respondent in W.P.(MD)No.1101 of 2021 being the sister-concern of the second respondent in W.P.(MD)No.6976 of 2020, both the writ petitions are heard together and are disposed of by way of this common order. 2. The second respondent in both the writ petitions availed credit facilities from the petitioner Bank and executed loan documents in the year 2015. It was further renewed in the year 2017. The accounts became non-performing in the year 2018. A statutory demand notice was issued by the petitioner, followed by sale notice. The properties were brought up for sale in the year 2019. The respondents 7 & 8 i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ith the arbitration. The loan obtained by the private respondents coupled with the mortgage deeds executed and registered, were admittedly prior to the loan obtained from the 9th respondent in W.P.(MD)No.6976 of 2020 / 8th respondent in W.P.(MD)No.1101 of 2021. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also made reliance upon the following judgments to buttress his submission: i) 2005 (7) SCC 610, in the case of M/s.S.B.P. & Co. v. M/s.Patel Engineering Ltd and another; ii) 2017 Supreme (MAD) 274, in the case of Express Infrastructure Private Ltd., Chennai v. B.L.Kashyap & Sons Ltd., New Delhi and others; iii) 2019 Supreme (SC) 1198, in the case of M/s.Sterling Industries v. Jayprakash Associates ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as 8th respondent in W.P.(MD)No.1101 of 2021, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner Bank indirectly seeks to set aside the interim order passed by the Arbitration Tribunal. There is a non-compliance of the mandate and the only remedy open to the petitioner is to challenge the interim order passed by the Arbitration Tribunal in the manner known to law. Thus, the petitions require to be dismissed. 7. Though the borrowers are represented by a Counsel, no valid submission is made on their behalf, as obviously they are the ones, who are responsible for the present situation. 8. Considering the similar issue, a Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us [Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH] is a party, i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....usly not a party, as the transaction has got nothing to do with it. The said order was also subsequent to the mortgage created in favour of the petitioner. Now, a third party right has also been created through the sale certificate issued in favour of the auction purchasers, viz., respondents 7 & 8 in W.P.(MD)No.6976 of 2020 and the 7th respondent in W.P.(MD)No.1101 of 2021. If the 1st respondent raise a contention that in view of the recording of the attachment order by it already, the subsequent sale deed cannot be registered, then the very act of recording the said interim order of attachment passed by the Tribunal itself ought not to have been done, as there was a subsisting mortgage on that date. 11. The learned Counsel appearing fo....