Disposed

Krishna Bankers, v. the Conpetent Authority

Madras HC1 Aug 2024CMA(MD)/904/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a limited request by appellants to approach the trial court for permission to sell attached property to settle depositors' dues. The appeal regarding the ad-interim attachment made absolute was closed with liberty granted to file a fresh application before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to approach the trial court for permission to sell attached property.

Krishna Bankers, Vs the Conpetent Authority — Madras HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C.M.A.(MD).No.904 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

C.M.A.(MD).No.904 of 2021 and C.M.P.(MD).Nos.8495 of 2021 and 3945 of 2022

¶7

1.Krishna Bankers, Kolvel, Kanniyakumari District.

¶8

2.Madhavan

¶9

3.Sunumadhavan ... Appellants/Respondents 1 to 3

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Competent Authority/ District Revenue Officer, Kanniyakumari District. ... 1^st Respondent/Appellant

¶12

Throwpathy (Died)

¶13

2.Sivakumar

¶14

3.Visweswari @ Prabha

¶15

... Respondents 2 & 3/ Respondents 5 & 6

¶16

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1997, to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 27.11.2018 passed in O.S.No.10 of 2016, on the file of the Special Court under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1997, Madurai.

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

C.M.A.(MD).No.904 of 2021

¶20

For Appellant : Mr.R.J.Karthick For Respondents : Mr.D.S.Nedunchezian for R1 R2 & R3 – Given up.

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 27.11.2018 passed in O.S.No.10 of 2016, on the file of the Special Court under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1997, Madurai.

¶23

2.The facts in brief:

¶24

The competent authority under the provision of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, filed a petition before the Special Court seeking order of making the ad-interim attachment absolute and permitting him to sell the property in the public aration with the following averments: On receipt of complaint from the depositors against M/s. Krishna Bankers, a financial establishment, that they failed to return the depositors after maturity, the DSP, EOW II, Nagercoil investigated the matter. In the meantime, by the order dated 14.12.2011 in G.O.Ms.No.854, Home (Pol-XIX) Department, issued adinterim order of attachment of immovable properties belongs to Madhavan and other

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

C.M.A.(MD).No.904 of 2021

¶28

partners. Krishna Bankers brought under the control of the competent authority namely District Revenue Officer, Kanniyakumari. Further steps were taken as per the provisions prescribed under the relevant Rules. From the enquiry conducted, it was found that a case was made out and final report was filed, taken cognizance by the Special Court for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and Section 5 of the TANPID Act. So the interim order of attachment must be made absolute.

¶29

3.The 6^th respondent only filed the counter, who is arrayed as third respondent in this matter. No counter was filed by this appellant and after hearing both sides, the special Court recorded a finding that ad interim order of attachment has been made absolute, in view of the non settlement of dues to the depositors. All the formalities have been properly complied by the competent authorities. The counter raised by the 6^th respondent in the man petition was rejected.

¶30

4.The concluding portion reads as under:

¶31

“14.The Properties were interimly attached for the welfare of the Victim/depositors. The intention of the legislative is that the Victim to be equated with

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

C.M.A.(MD).No.904 of 2021

¶35

their deposit money atleast from the sale proceeds of attached properties. In order to fulfil the liabilities of the accused towards the Victim/depositors the properties are attached. Here the accused has to settle 131 depositors to the tune of Rs.2,02,39,832/-. Therefore, the properties, interimly attached can be made absolute.”

¶36

5.In view of the said finding the properties mentioned in the petition, except item No.6, the ad-interim attachment was made absolute, in respect of other properties. Against which, this appeal is preferred by the appellant, who are the respondents 1 to 3 in the main petition. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that most of the depositors have been settled by them, only a portion of the amount remains to be settled. So permission may be granted to them to sell one of the attached properties. So that the entire amount can be deposited. But, such sort of contention cannot be raised before this Court. If the petitioner wants to settle the issue, either they can approach the concerned authority or the concerned Court itself seeking permission to sell the property by raising the attachment. As mentioned above, no such

¶37

plea was raised by the appellant before the trial Court. For the first time

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

C.M.A.(MD).No.904 of 2021

¶41

such a plea has been raised. The other grounds in the petition itself, is not maintainable, in view of the fact that they have not made any objection before the trial Court.

¶42

6.Considering the limited request made by the appellant, liberty is granted to them to approach the concerned trial Court itself for appropriate relief. If the petition is filed, then the trial Court shall dispose the same on its own merits, within a period of one month, thereafter.

¶43

7.With the above said liberty and direction, this civil miscellaneous appeal is Closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶44

01.08.2024

¶45

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TM

¶46

¶47

1.The Judge, Special Court under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1997, Madurai.

¶48

2.The Section Officer, E.R.Section/V.R.Section,

¶49

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶50

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

¶51

5/6

¶52

C.M.A.(MD).No.904 of 2021

¶53

G.ILANGOVAN ,J.

¶54

¶55

C.M.A.(MD).No.904 of 2021

¶56

01.08.2024

¶57

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

¶58

6/6

Krishna Bankers, v. the Conpetent Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Bankers, v. the Conpetent Authority

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

The Manager, Vs Navaneetham

The Branch Manager, Vs Thamburatti

The Director Vs Veluchamy

V.v.Sethuraman, Vs v.Swaminathan

Dr.S.Venkatprabu Vs R. Shiva Prasad IPS

P.Leelavathi Vs Sivanupandi Thevar