10.Faced with the legal position outlined above, Shri.P.T.S.Narendravasan, learned counsel for the first respondent contended that this Court ought not to interfere in view of the peculiar circumstances obtaining in this case. He pointed out that even though the competent authority obtained orders in the year 2005 to sell the properties in public auction, it could sell only three items viz., item Nos.5,7 and 9 and that too only for Rs.47,27,500/-. The sale consideration realised by public action was not disbursed till 2006. In other words, the said amount had been lying idle in the bank deposit and the depositors were not benefited. Further, no steps were taken after 2007 to sell the attached properties. Even though the proposed purchaser was willing to pay only Rs.70,00,000/- for the said Item No.10, when the Special Court enhanced the amount to Rs.91,30,000/-, the proposed purchaser promptly remitted the same and thus he proved his bonafides. Following such deposit by the proposed purchaser, attachment was raised on 04 October 2016 and sale deed was also registered in his favour on 20 October 2016. The said amount of Rs.91,30,000/- was withdrawn and the claims of a number of depositors were settled. Thiru.P.T.S.Narendravasan, learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the appellants are estopped from invoking section 7(4) of the TNPID Act. On earlier occasions, similar course of action i.e. sale through private negotiation was allowed by the Special Court and the same were not challenged. Only in the case of Item No.10, the appellants are raising objections. In any event, the money raised by such a sale went only towards settling the claims of depositors, which is the intent and object of the Statute and therefore no interference was called for in this case.
