The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing police to disburse recovered funds to investors based on a bond from a company accused of cheating. The court observed that the investigation involving over 500 depositors was not yet completed and dismissed the writ as premature.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.06.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
W.P.(MD)No.9225 of 2014
2.B.Vimaladevi
3.T.Thimmaiyan
4.T.Boorthai
5.Pitchaimuthu
6.B.Govindaraj
7.M.T.Murugan
8.R.Shanmugavel 9.V.Thangavel 10.V.Kamala 11.Tamilselvi 12.P.Jeevanantham 13.Palraj 14.L.Rathinam 15.G.Easterraj 16.Estear 17.K.Madurai Veeran 18.P.Sakthivel 19.T.Ayyadurai 20.A.Gomathi 21.Eshwari 22.V.Murugesan 23.C.Muthusamy 24.R.Manoharan 25.R.P.Saravanan 26.Sankara Narayanan 27.Rajesh Kannan 28.P.Ayyathurai 29.Hildar Jayanthi Mari 30.T.Murugan 31.Pappammal 32.Uthrairaj -Vs1. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
.. Petitioners
2
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to disburse the amounts to the petitioners as per the bond executed by the 3rd respondent from the sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- [Rupees One Crore only] recovered by the 1st respondent from the 3rd respondent company within a time stipulated by this court.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar
For R1 and R2 : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Additional Government Pleader
For 3rd Respondent : No appearance
O R D E R
The petitioners have come up with the present writ petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to disburse the amounts to the petitioners, as per the bound executed by the 3rd respondent.
2.The case of the petitioners is that they have deposited amount in the 3rd respondent company, on their promise to pay interest at 10% every month. However, the 3rd respondent paid the said interest only for a period of six months and thereafter, the company was locked.
3.The petitioner would further state that since the 3rd respondent cheated many depositors, a criminal case was filed against the 3rd respondent and the respondents 1and 2 have to recover the amount to the tune of one crore and the same has to be disbursed to the petitioners.
4.The learned Additional Government Pleader by referring the counter of the 2nd respondent submitted that the 3rd respondent company through their party agents have collected huge amounts from nearly 500 depositors, however they have recovered Rs.50,00,000/- so far and the said amount has been deposited to the credit of the Crime No.26 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Dindigul. It is further stated that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ investigation is going on and steps have been taken to recover the balance amount.
3
6.Considering the fact that more than 500 persons have invested in the 3rd respondent company and the investigation is not yet completed, this court is of the opinion that the writ petition is premature and hence, it is liable to be dismissed at this juncture.
7.In the result, the writ petition is dismissed as premature. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
District Crime Branch,
Dindigul District.
+1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.60574
ER
VB/MR/KKR/SAR4/11.07.2017/3P/4C
W.P.(MD)No.9225 of 2014 15.06.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking direction to disburse recovered funds to depositors is maintainable when the criminal investigation is pending and the transaction involves multiple investors.
P. Balamurugan
The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District
The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch
The Promoters, Wall Words Company
K. Kalyanasundaram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
