SAKTHI INDUSTRIES Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. N. Pappiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 2 to 4 in the writ petition, submits that he is representing the learned counsel for the first petitioner also. By consent of learned counsel on both sides, writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.

(2.) The petitioners have sought, for issuance of a Writ of declaration declaring that Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is ultra vires and unconstitutional, and liable to be struck down.

(3.) Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as follows. The first petitioner is a proprietory concern and it availed financial assistance from the first respondent Bank in the year 1981 by mortgaging the property of the proprietor bearing Door No. 39, Burkit Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600017 and the loan is said to be repaid. Subsequently, the first petitioner availed fresh facility from the first respondent Bank in the year 1988 by mortgaging the very same property. There was default in repayment and the first respondent filed O.A. No. 108 of 1998 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai for recovery of the balance outstanding in the mortgage loan and the case was transferred to the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ill, Chennai and got re-numbered as O.A. No. 5 of 2007. In the meanwhile, the first petitioner sold the mortgaged property by two registered Sale deeds dated 19/11/1995 to the