Partly allowed

M/s The South Indian Bank, v. The Sate of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC17 Nov 2023WP/10346/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a miscellaneous petition seeking auction sale of remaining seized jewels as the criminal trial is pending. The court closed the main writ petition as the earlier direction to constitute a committee had been complied with and directed the trial court to complete proceedings within six months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; Miscellaneous petition dismissed.

M/s The South Indian Bank, Vs The Sate of Tamil Nadu — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.10346 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.10346 of 2015 and WMP.No.6519 of 2020

¶7

M/s.The South Indian Bank Represented by its Branch Manager, Kumaran Road, Tiruppur 641 601

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Fort St.Geroge, Chennai-9 2.The Director General of Police, Kamaraj Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-4 3.The Commissioner of Police, Tiruppur 4.The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur 5.K.Ganesan 6.Priya Jewellers, Represented by its Proprietorship K.Ganesan, 425, Avinashi Road, Near Bungalow Stop, Tiruppur

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Page 1 of 8

W.P.No.10346 of 2015

7.Dhavakumar

... Respondents

PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing to constitute a committee along with the branch manager of the petitioner bank as a member of the committee with suitable direction to hand over the entire jewels seized by the fourth respondent to the bank for safe custody with a direction to produce the same as and when directed by the committee to facilitate the redemption of the jewels by the original owners after payment of the entire amount due to the fifth respondent or to priya jewellers or both of them to the petitioner bank.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Arun Kumar for M/s.Sampathkumar and Associates For Respondents For R1 to 4 : Mr.L.Baskaran, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R5 & 6 : No appearance

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition has been filed for direction to constitute a committee along with the Branch Manager of the petitioner bank with suitable direction to hand over the jewels which were seized by the fourth respondent to the petitioner bank for safe custody.

¶20

Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 8

¶22

W.P.No.10346 of 2015

¶23

This court by order dated 14.12.2018, after constituting the committee, issued the following directions:

¶24

10. Accordingly, by consent of all the parties, the following committee is constituted :-

¶25

i. Mr.M.Thangarajan, District Judge (Retired), No.12/3, Pragasam Sree Towers, Eswaran Chettiyar Layout, Puliyakulam, Coimbatore (Mobile No.9443202144), is appointed as the Chairman of a committee to supervise the redemption.

¶26

ii. The third respondent namely the Commissioner of Police, Tiruppur shall nominate one person of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, as a Member to the Committee.

¶27

iii The petitioner bank shall nominate one of their managerial personnel to be a Member of the Committee.

¶28

11. The above committee shall follow the following directions :

¶29

i. The Committee is directed to issue public notice in two Tamil dailies widely circulated in the Districts of Coimbatore, Tiruppur and Erode, along with one English daily of Coimbatore Edition, informing the general public as well as the persons who had pledged their jewels with the 5th respondent, in respect of forming of the committee by this Court for the purpose of facilitating the redemption of jewels pledged.

¶30

ii. The respondents 1 to 4 are directed to hand over all the seized jewels to the committee and the committee is directed to keep the same in the safe vault available with the petitioner bank along

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Page 3 of 8

¶33

W.P.No.10346 of 2015

¶34

with round the clock security.

¶35

iii. The Committee is directed to call for persons, who had pledged their jewels to the respondents 5 to 7 and who are all interested in the redemption of their jewels to appear before the committee along with the pawn tickets issued by the respondents 5 to 7 while pledging their jewels with them.

¶36

iv. The Committee is directed to hand over the jewels pledged with the respondents 5 to 7 for the identification of jewels by them and after receiving the balance amount due to the respondents 5 to 7 as per accounts.

¶37

v. Investigating officer of the case should produce the aggrieved parties before the committee one by one in a regulated manner.

¶38

vi. The Committee would decide the amount due from the aggrieved parties with the help of the Investigating Officer. The owner/staff of the accused / pawn brokers shall cooperate and furnish necessary particulars to the committee.

¶39

vii. On payment of the amount due by the aggrieved party, the committee shall make arrangements for the return of the respective jewels to the aggrieved party, in the following manner :- (a) Where the concerned jewel is already siezed by the police, it will be produced before the committee by the Investigating Officer for the purpose of returning it to the aggrieved party.

¶40

(b) Where the concerned jewel is not seized but available with the petitioner bank, the petitioner bank shall produce

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 8

¶42

W.P.No.10346 of 2015

¶43

it before the committee for return to the aggrieved party.

¶44

(c) Where the concerned jewel is not available with the petitioner bank due to the auctioning or any other valid reason, it would be their responsibility to produce an alternative jewel of same weight and purity for return to the aggrieved party. If it is not possible, petitioner bank should pay an amount equivalent to the difference between the market value of concerned jewel at the prevailing gold rate and the amount due to the aggrieved party in lieu of his/her jewel, pledged with the pawnbrokers.

¶45

viii. The petitioner bank shall produce the list of all jewels pledged with them by the concerned accused / pawn brokers along with the amount due from such pawn brokers/agents in respect of each of their account. The loan account shall also reflect the total amount received from the aggrieved parties and their total profit of loss in the particular transaction. In case the total amount received from the aggrieved person in aggregate is in excess of the total amount due from concerned accused / pawn brokers, the difference amount shall be entrusted to the Investigating Officer for seizure and production before the Jurisdictional Court.

¶46

(ix) The committee is permitted to exercise its discretion in a lawful manner to resolve any other practical issues arising from time to time while undertaking the process by following the directives. The petitioner bank must cooperate with the Committee for an effective implementation of the scheme of arrangement, notwithstanding the absence of a specific provision in the present guidelines.

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 8

¶48

¶49

W.P.No.10346 of 2015

¶50

This court specifically ordered that the Committee constituted will

¶51

function for a period of six months from the date of constitution. The Committee returned 104 packets of jewels which were pledged by the customers to them out of 258 packets of jewels. The remaining 154 packets of jewels were kept by the petitioner bank. Now the petitioner bank has filed miscellaneous petition seeking permission to sell the remaining 154 gold packets bearing 1476.6 gram pledged by the fifth respondent herein through auction. However, the fourth respondent completed investigation in crime No.5 of 2014 and filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruppur in CC.No.200 of 2018. Now, the trial is proceeded before the trial court. At this stage, the remaining jewels cannot be permitted to be sold since any person who pledged with the fifth respondent may come before the trial court. Therefore, the direction sought for in the miscellaneous petition cannot be considered. According, the miscellaneous petition in WMP.No.6519 of 2020 is dismissed.

¶52

In view of the earlier order passed by this Court dated 14.12.2018, the main relief sought for in this writ petition has been complied with. As such, this writ petition is closed. The trial court is directed to complete the trial in

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 8

¶54

W.P.No.10346 of 2015

¶55

CC.No.200 of 2018 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that whenever the remaining 154 packets of jewels are required by the trial court, the petitioner shall produce the same before the trial court during trial. After completion of trial, the petitioner can seek necessary permission before the trial court to deal with the jewels. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

17.11.2023

¶57

Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order lok

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 8

¶59

W.P.No.10346 of 2015

¶60

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶61

lok

¶62

¶63

1.Secretary, The State of Tamilnadu, Home Department, Fort St.Geroge, Chennai-9 2.The Director General of Police, Kamaraj Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-4 3.The Commissioner of Police, Tiruppur 4.The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur 5.K.Ganesan, Proprietorship, Priya Jewellers, 425, Avinashi Road, Near Bungalow Stop, Tiruppur 6.The Government Advocate High Court of Madras

¶64

W.P.No.10346 of 2015

¶65

17.11.2023

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

Page 8 of 8

M/s The South Indian Bank, v. The Sate of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s The South Indian Bank, v. The Sate of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Muruganandham, M/a 54 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police

Suresh Kumar, Aged 40 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Mani, M/a 29 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

Vinod Kumar, Age 39 Yrs, Vs R.Revathy

Ramar Vs the State Rep by Its

S.Sudhir Khanna Vs State Rep by