ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY INDIA LIMITED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking direction of this Court to direct the second respondent herein to receive the petitioner's complaint dated 21.04.2015 and investigate the same within such period as the Court may specify.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner herein is that Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited (ARCIL) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is registered as a securitization company and reconstruction company in terms of Section 3 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). It is a recognized as a 'financial institution' within the meaning of Section 2 (h) (ia) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. M/s.Indian Bank Limited, Chennai in and around 1995 1996 extended financial facilities to M/s.Abhinav Exim (Madras) Private Limited, M/s.Indeco Builders Private Limited, M/s.Sanjeevi Packaging Private Limited, M/s.Jaimatha Farm Dealers Private Limited, M/s.Well Stores Madras Private Limited and M/s.Ramaraj Trading Private Limited (jointly referred to as borrowers ) to a tune of Rs.30,00,00,000/- to secure the repayment properties were mortgaged that Indian Bank. Later, when the borrower defaulted in payment action under the SARFAESI Act was initiated, the possession of the property was taken over by the Bank and later assigned the secured Financial Asset along with interest to the petitioner herein, namely ARCIL.

(3.) While so, when the petitioner took physical possession of the properties and placed sale notice under Rules 6(2) and Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 to the borrowers intimating that the said mortgaged properties were being brought for sale, the borrowers lodged criminal complaints on 18.02.2009 questioning the action of the petitioner fencing the land made to avoid illegal land grabbing. While, fact being so S.P.Velayudham, Son of Sabapathi, who is impleaded as fourth respondent in this petition fabricated two power of attorneys dated 23.08.2006 and 07.06.2007 in his favour and by virtue of the said fabricated said power of attorney, he had sold a large extent of the land including the mortgaged properties which are subject matter of secured financial assets assigned to the petitioner herein. The said sale is sham and nominal, since the purchasor is none other than the own son of S.P.Velayudham.