Allowed

J. Ramachandrn v. Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC1 Feb 2011WP/1779/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order attaching his property under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors Act due to a fund default. The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the attachment order on the ground that claims had been settled and the basis for the order no longer existed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Government Order attaching the petitioner's property is set aside; the writ petition is allowed.

J. Ramachandrn Vs Government of Tamilnadu — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.2.2011

¶3

CORAM:-

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR

¶5

W.P. No. 1779 of 2008

¶6

J. Ramachandran .. Petitioner
Vs.
1 GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMNT,
HOME (POLICE XYX) DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE
CHENNAI 600 009
2 THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER
CUDDALORE
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
CUDDALORE
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING II, CUDDALORE
5 THE TAHSILDAR
CHIDAMBARAM. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of he
first respondent herein in G.O.Ms.No. 1712 Home (police XYZ )
Department dated 26-11-2007 and quash the same.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr. AR.L.Sundaresan Sr. Counsel for Mrs. AR.L.Ganthimathi For Respondents : Mr. L.S.M. Hasan Fizal Govt. Advocate

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This writ petition is filed to call for the records of he first respondent herein in G.O.Ms.No. 1712 Home (police XYZ ) Department dated 26-11-2007 and quash the same.

¶11

The petitioner, one of the Directors of the Arudhra Benefit Fund Limited has filed this writ petition. The Benefit Fund defaulted in return of deposits and therefore proceedings were initiated under the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act 1997 (44/1997) (herein after referred to as the 'Act'.) based on the complaints made by the individuals and consequent investigation and the recommendations of the Inspector of Police, E.O.W., the Government passed G.O.Ms.No. 1712 (Police)- XYX Department, dated 26.11.2007 granting an ad-interim order attaching the property of the financial establishments in terms of Section 3 of the said Act and the competent authority was asked to proceed under the Provisions of the Act. The properties of the petitioner/ director of the benefit fund were attached and consequently, he has filed the present writ petition challenging the Government Order on various issues. This Court granted interim protection insofar as the order of attachment is concerned and at the time of final hearing, the learned Government Advocate produced a proceedings issued by the competent authority to the Secretary to Government in Proceedings No. Na.Ka.C3/70530/2007, dated 15.12.2010 , which reads as follows:-

¶12

@ bghUs ; / bghUshjhuf;Fw;wg;gpupt[ ? flY}u; khtl;lk; ? rpjk;guk; MUj;uh bgdpgpl; gz;l; epjp epWtd KjyPl;lhsu;fis kw;Wk; chpikahsh;fis tpjp 5. A -d; fPH; tprhuizfs; bra;ag;gl;lJ ? tprhuizfs; Kot[w;wJ ? bjhlh;ghf.

¶13

ghh;it ;./ 1/ murhiz vz; 1712 cs; (fhty; 19) Jiw. ehs; 26/11/07/

¶14

,t;tYtyf tprhuiz thf;FK:y';fs;/

¶15

flY}u;/ bghUshjhu Fw;wg;gpupt[ fhty; Jiz fz;fhzpg;ghsh; fojk; vz; 23 /DSP/EOW II/Cud/2010, ehs; 1/9/2010.

¶16

,t;tYtyf mwpf;if e/f/rp/70530 2007 ehs; 27./9/2010/

¶17

jpUkjp ru!;tjp f/bg/fypabgUkhs; thf;FK:yk;/ ehs; 10/12/2010/

¶18

ghh;itapy; fhQqk; foj';fSf;F j';fsJ fdpthd ftdj;ijf; bfhzu tpiHfpnwd;/

¶19

(2) flY}u; khtl;lk;. rpjk;guk; MUj;uh bgdpgpl; gz;l; epWtdj;jpd; KjyPl;lhsh;fSf;F KjyPl;Lj; bjhifapid jpUk;gr; brYj;jhjjhy; nkw;go

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

epWtd brhj;Jf;fis ifg;gw;Wif bra;a ghh;it 1y; fhQqk; tptug;go murhid btspaplg;gl;lJ/

¶22

3/ Mdhy; nkwgo tHf;fpy; Fw;wg;gj;jphpf;if gjpt [ bra;ag;gltpy;iy/ vdnt. nkw;go tHf;fpid gpupt[ 5? A d; fPH; jFjpbgw;w mYtyh; kw;Wk; khtl;l mYtyuhy; tprhuizf;F vLj;Jf;bfhs;sg;gl;lJ/

¶23

4/ rpjk;guk; MUj;uh bgdpgpl; gz;l; vd;w epjp epWtdj;jpy; KjyPL bra;jpUe;j 17 KjyPl;lhsh;fisa[k; jkpH;ehL KjyPl;lhsh;fs; ghJfhg;g[ rl;lk; 1977 gpupt[ 5? A d; fPH; jFjpbgw;w mYtyh; kw;Wk; khtl;l mYtyh; mtu;fshy; tprhuiz ; bra;J thf;FK:y';fs; bgwg;gl;lJ/

¶24

5/ vdnt. flY}u; khtl;lk;. rpjk;guk; MUj;uh bgdpgpl; gz;l; epWtdj;jpy; KjyPL bra;J bjhif tH';fg;glhj KjyPl;lhsh;fs; vtUk; , y;iy vd;gjhYk;. tprhuiz bra;a ntz;oa KjyPl;lhsh;fs; vtUk; ,y;iy vd;gjhYk; ghh;it 1y; fz;l murhizapy; ifg;gw;Wif bra;a bjhptpf;fg;gl;l nkw;go epWtdj;jpd; mirah brhj;jpid tpLtpj;J MizapLtjw;F jf;f Mizfs; tH';Fk;go fdpt[ld; nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwd;/ @

¶25

In view of the subsequent events where the claim of persons have been settled, which is evident from the proceedings above, the order of attachment has to be set aside. Since there is no claim from the individuals/depositors, the basis for the Government order does not survive now and hence the impugned Government Order is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. ra Sd/Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMNT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU HOME (POLICE XYX) DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI 600 009 2 THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER CUDDALORE

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CUDDALORE

¶28

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶29

ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING II, CUDDALORE

¶30

5 THE TAHSILDAR

¶31

CHIDAMBARAM.

¶32

1 cc to M/s. AL. Ganthimathi, Advocate SR No.7503
+ 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.78351
VD(CO)
SR/21.2.2011
WP No. 1779/2008

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

J. Ramachandrn v. Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Ramachandrn v. Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joyce Arockia Mary, Vs the Managing Director

Thirupur Municipality Shop Vs the Commissioner

S Duraiarasan Vs the Director of School

V. Ramalingam Vs the District Collector

Thiruvalluvar Textiles (P) Vs Tamilnadu Electricity

S. Udaya Kumar Vs the Assistant Engineer