Disposed

Mr.Nachiappan, v. the District Collector

Madras HC6 Feb 2018WP(MD)/2069/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, depositors challenged the delay in realizing deposited amounts from attached properties owned by a financial firm. The Madurai Bench held that the matter was sub judice before the Special Court but permitted the petitioner to submit a representation to the third respondent for an application under Section 7(8) of the TNPID Act, directing a response within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Permitted petitioner to submit representation for application under Section 7(8); directed third respondent to consider and pass orders within twelve weeks.

Mr.Nachiappan, Vs the District Collector — Insurance | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.02.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P(MD)No.2069 of 2018

¶7

Mr.Nachiappan, S/o.Marappa Gounder,

¶8

President of Amutham Investment Affected Depositors Association (Reg.No.152/08), 23/49, Mengles Road, Dindigul, Dindigul District. ... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigu.

¶11

The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶12

The Competent Authority/District Revenue Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶13

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing-II, Dindigul, Dindigul District. (Cr.No.1 of 2002 and 1 of 2004)

¶14

Amutham Finance Rep. By its Proprietor, Mr.P.Pragaspathy, S/o.Lage V.P.Pitchai Pillai, 18/B/2 Aarthy Theatre Road, Dindigiul, Dindigul District.

¶15

P.Meenapathy

¶16

S/o.P.Pragaspathy, Managing Patner Amutham Finance,

¶17

18/B/2 Aarthy Theatre Road,

¶18

Dindigul, Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to

¶20

¶21

direct the third respondent herein to initiate proceedings before TANPID Special Court, Madurai to comply the section 7(8) of TNPID Act in order to conduct public auction of the properties attached as per G.O.Ms.223 dated 16.03.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.426 dated 02.06.2006 and distribute the amount received from the sale proceedings among the depositors.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Selvaraj For Respondents : Mr.R.Sethuraman, Special Government Pleader

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The relief sought is for a direction to direct the third respondent to initiate proceedings before TANPID Special Court, Madurai to comply the section 7(8) of TNPID Act in order to conduct public auction of the properties attached as per G.O.Ms.223 dated 16.03.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.426 dated 02.06.2006 and distribute the amount received from the sale proceedings among the depositors.

¶25

2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the third respondent/The District Revenue Officer is the competent authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 for the purpose of filing the application under Section 7(8) of the said Act.

¶26

3.The grievance of the writ petitioner is that even after a lapse of 16 years, the depositors are unable to realize their deposited amount. The properties belonged to the fifth respondent had been attached and inspite of that no action was initiated to realise the amount and disburse the same to the depositors.

¶27

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that there is an enormous delay in concluding the proceedings and the depositors are aged people and they cannot afford to wait further.

¶28

5.This Court is of an opinion that the case is now pending before the Special Court (TANPID), Madurai. It is for the Special Court to adjudicate the matter under the provisions of law and dispose of the cases as early as possible. However in respect of realization of the amount, this Court cannot pass any orders in view of the fact that the matter is subjudice before the Special Court. However, for a limited purpose, the writ petitioner is permitted to submit a representation to the third Respondent/The Competent Authority for filing an application under Section 7(8) of the TANPID Act.

¶29

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

¶30

6.In this view of the matter, the writ petitioner is at liberty to submit a detailed representation along with the

¶31

¶32

documents, if any, to the third respondent with a request to file appropriate application under Section 7(8) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments), Act, 1997 before the Special Court. In the event of receiving any such application from the writ petitioner, the third respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on the same and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.

¶33

7.With these observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/-

¶34

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶35

/True Copy/

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

¶38

The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigu.

¶39

The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶40

The Competent Authority/District Revenue Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶41

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing-II, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶42

+1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.46925 +1cc to Mr.D.Selvaraj, Advocate Sr.No.46460

¶43

¶44

VB/KK/SAR2/19.02.2018/3P/7C

¶45

W.P(MD)No.2069 of 2018 06.02.2018

¶46

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

Mr.Nachiappan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Nachiappan, v. the District Collector

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

N. Veeraraj Vs the District Elementary

M. Shanmuganathan, Vs the Administrative Director

Kailashsundaram, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

G. Kothainayaki Vs the District Elementary

Dr.I.Ismail, Vs M.S.S. Wakf Board College

M. Muniyasamy, Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Op.