Allowed

T.Vimala v. the Deputy Registrar

Madras HC26 Nov 2024WP(MD)/11277/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging an arbitration award and auction notice regarding a cooperative loan. The Court held that the scheme covered dues as on the date of the father's death, and subsequent interest claims were vitiated. Petitioner was directed to pay a nominal difference and return documents.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award and auction notice set aside; petitioner directed to pay Rs.10,000; respondents to release mortgage documents within two weeks; security deposit of Rs.2,00,000 returned.

T.Vimala Vs the Deputy Registrar — Madras HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.11277 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.11.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.11277 of 2015 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2015

T.Vimala

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, (Housing) K.K.Nagar, Madurai.

¶11

2.The Co-operative Sub Registrar, (Housing), Madurai.

¶12

3.The Secretary MDA/HSG-14, Madurai Mela Anuppanadi Building Society Ltd., D.No.27B, Velayuthampillai Street, Goripalayam,Madurai-002. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶14

praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the

¶15

records relating to the proceedings of the award dated 20/07/2010 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and the consequential auction notice dated 28.06.2015 on the file of the 1^st respondent and published in newspaper

¶16

_________Page 1 of 10

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.11277 of 2015

¶19

dated 28.06.2015 and quash the same and further directing the respondents to return the documents submitted by the petitioner's father as mortgage security with the 3^rd respondent.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For R1 to R3 : Mr.K.Jeyaseelan Government Advocate

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Mr.K.Jeyaseelan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for respondents.

¶23

2.This writ petition had been filed challenging the proceedings of the impugned award, dated 20.07.2010 and the consequential auction notice, dated 28.08.2015, seeking further direction to the respondents to return the documents submitted by the petitioner's father to secure the mortgage loan that had been filed by them.

¶24

3.It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's father had availed a loan from the third respondent society for a sum of

¶25

_________Page 2 of 10

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.11277 of 2015

¶28

Rs.4,75,000/- to be repaid by 120 equated monthly instalments. Her father had also availed a Group Insurance Scheme, which envisages that the outstanding loan amount on the date of his death would be covered by the Insurance. He would further submit that the petitioner's father died on 05.05.2001 and therefore, by applying the scheme, whatever was left to be paid was the amount of EMIs which remained unpaid on the date of his death. Based upon the same, a demand was made to the petitioner's mother for payment of sum of Rs.66,988/- and the same had been paid by the petitioner on 06.12.2021. However, after nearly 10 months a notice was issued by the third respondent, which had been suitably replied to by the mother of the petitioner. Thereafter, the summons for enquiry of arbitration was made and an award was passed contrary to the terms of the Group Insurance Scheme. Hence, she had challenged this order and the consequential auction notice.

¶29

4.He would further submit that when the petitioner's father had

¶30

subscribed to the Group Insurance Scheme to cover the dues that was available on the date of the death of her father and that the same also

¶31

_________Page 3 of 10

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.11277 of 2015

¶34

been recovered by the third respondent society under the Group Insurance Scheme and the present claim only relates to the interest for the delayed payment alone, which also is exorbitant. He would submit that the third respondent to be entitled to say only to the outstanding EMIs as on the date of the death of his father, which also have been excluded by the third respondent and paid by the mother of the petitioner. Hence, he seeks interference of this Court.

¶35

5.He would also submit that in the event of the Court finding if the writ petition is to be allowed, then she would also prayed for permitting the petitioner to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- that had been deposited by her in pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court on 03.07.2015.

¶36

6.Countering the same, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there has been a delay in payment of the amounts and amount that has been calculated is the interest for the delayed payment, which has been wrongly calculated at that time and since the claim for

¶37

_________Page 4 of 10

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD) No.11277 of 2015

¶40

interest of the delayed payment was not paid, the same has been accumulated as Rs.14,00,000/- and odd. He would further submit that if the claim of the petitioner is entertained, the third respondent's society would be severely prejudiced. Therefore, he would submit that the writ petition should be dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to make the payment, only upon which, the property documents may be released.

¶41

7.I have considered the rival submissions.

¶42

8.Admittedly, the father of the petitioner had availed the loan by

¶43

securing the property as mortgage and also had subscribed under the Group Insurance Scheme to cover any dues that would be available in the event of his death. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner died on 05.05.2001. On the date of the death of the father of the petitioner as per the scheme of the Group Insurance any amount that was due to the account of the petitioner's father would have to be covered by the Group Insurance Scheme. What remains to be paid by the legal heirs of the deceased borrower is any pending EMIs as on the date of the death of the

¶44

_________Page 5 of 10

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD) No.11277 of 2015

¶47

borrower.

¶48

9.In the present case, on instructions, the learned Special

¶49

Government Pleader had produced a Tabular Column indicating the amounts that have been due and payable by the father of the petitioner. For better appreciation, the same is extracted hereunder.

¶50

T. tpkyh W.P.(MD).No.11277/2015

¶51

cWg;gpdh; fld; bgw;w ehs; : 03/12/1999. bjhif : 4.75.000-?

¶52

1. cWg;gpdh; ,we;j njjpf;F Ke;ija Mz;L $%d; 30/06/2000 khj epYit ? 30033

¶53

1. cWg;gpdh; ,we;j md;W (May) 05/05/2001 brYj;jntz;oa bjhif : 68003

¶54

1. thhpRjhuh;fs; gzk; brYj;jpa ehs; : 06/12/2001 bjhif 66988

¶55

1. ,we;j cWg;gpdhpd; ,wg;g[ kw;Wk; thhpR rhd;wpjiH r';fj;jpy; xg;gilj;j ehs;: 28/09/2002 brYj;j ntz;oa tl;o ghf;fp 100681/50

¶56

kh	j jtiz	(Deman	d)brYj;j n; ;	; tz;oa ;	; ; tpguk;	khj jt	iz(D	emand)	brYj;jp ; ;	;a ntz;o ;	; ;a tpguk;
t/ vz;/	Month & Year	mry;	tl;o	mguhj tl;o	bkhj;jk;	gzk; brYj;jpa tpguk;	mry;	tl;o	mguhj tl;o	bkhj;jk;	Loan Amount
1.	June 2000	9207.50	20032.50	793	30033	-					465792.50
2.	May 2001	20011	44235	3757	68003	-					446686.50
3.	Nov 2001	31788	82900	-	114688	dt. 06.12.2001 66988	20011	44235	2739 Notice Charge Rs.5	66988	434909.50
4.	Sep 2002	33830.50	100681.50	24000	158512	-	-	-	-	-	412856.00

¶57

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

¶58

Page 6 of 10

¶59

W.P.(MD) No.11277 of 2015

¶60

10.Reading of the same would indicate that on the date of the death of the petitioner's father i.e., on 05.05.2001, he was liable to pay a sum of Rs.68,003/-. On that the legal heirs have remitted a sum of Rs.66,988/- on 06.12.2001. However, it is also further indicates that the Death Certificate of the Borrower was only handed over on 28.09.2002 and therefore, as on the date there is balance of Rs.1,00,681.50. The said calculation clearly controverts the admitted Scheme of Group Insurance. When the borrower had admittedly died on 05.05.2001, the outstanding dues as on the date gets freezed and covered under the Group Insurance Scheme. What remains to be paid is the dues that were available as on the date of the death of the borrower. Even as per the Table only a sum of Rs.68,003/- was due from the deceased borrower. Therefore, there can be no claim after 05.05.2001 i.e., the date of the death of the deceased borrower. In such event, the impugned award granting interest on interest on the said dues is vitiated.

¶61

_________Page 7 of 10

¶62

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

¶63

W.P.(MD) No.11277 of 2015

¶64

11.On that ground alone the award is liable to be set aside. As the impugned order is set aside, the consequential auction notice is also liable to be set aside. From the calculation, it could be seen that there is a difference of sum of Rs.1,015/- to be still paid by the petitioner. Considering the said fact, I am inclined to direct the petitioner to make good the difference of amount of a sum of Rs.1,015/- by making consolidated payment of Rs.10,000/- to the third respondent society, which would also include interest on Rs.1015/- and on such payment of Rs.10,000/- as directed supra, the third respondent shall release the property documents, that had been handed over by the petitioner's father and admitted to be in their possession within a period of two weeks from the receipt of such payment. The petitioner is also permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- that had been deposited by her with the second respondent. The second respondent shall disburse the said amount within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶65

12.In fine, this writ petition stands allowed subject to the above

¶66

_________Page 8 of 10

¶67

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

¶68

W.P.(MD) No.11277 of 2015

¶69

directions issued. There shall be no order as to costs. consequently,

¶70

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶71

26.11.2024

¶72

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes TM

¶73

¶74

1.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, (Housing) K.K.Nagar, Madurai.

¶75

2.The Co-operative Sub Registrar, (Housing), Madurai.

¶76

3.The Secretary MDA/HSG-14, Madurai Mela Anuppanadi Building Society Ltd., D.No.27B, Velayuthampillai Street, Goripalayam,Madurai-002.

¶77

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

¶78

_________Page 9 of 10

¶79

W.P.(MD) No.11277 of 2015

¶80

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶81

¶82

W.P.(MD) No.11277 of 2015

¶83

Dated: 26.11.2024

¶84

_________Page 10 of 10

¶85

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

T.Vimala v. the Deputy Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Vimala v. the Deputy Registrar

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

Pandiyammal Vs the State Rep. by

P.Kamatchiraj Vs the General Manager

K. Ravindran Vs the Secretary to Govt.

Shri M.Sitharthan, Vs the Inspector General of

Kadhar Mohideen, Vs the Regional Deputy Registrar

C.Vijayakumar, Vs Nagercoil Municipality