Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2892 (MAD)

N. Rosammal v. Secretary

2012-07-09

K.CHANDRU

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking to challenge the order of the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.10 Home (Courts.II A) Department, dated 3.1.2002. Admittedly, the said order came to be passed by the State Government by virtue of the power conferred on the State Government under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 (Act No.44 of 1997). It was found out that M/s.Southern Finance and Trading, Southern Textiles and Southern Jewellers, Ambattur have committed default in returning the deposits to the depositors. Therefore, an interim order of attaching the money and other properties of the financial establishment was issued under Section 3 by the Order. The Order lists out various properties allegedly belonging to the financial establishments and Serial No.11 relates to one Venkatesan, S/o.Parthasarathy, 39-B, Red Hills Road, Vinayakapuram, Ambattur, Chennai-53. The land described therein is vacant patta land relating to several survey numbers. In this case, petitioner is concerned with S.No.287/1 and 287/4. According to the petitioner, her properties are no way connected to the alleged default by the financial establishment and they have been illegally included in the attachment order. It is also stated by her that Venkatesan, whose name is mentioned therein, is no way connected with her property. The said Venkatesan and his brother were accused in Crime No.116 of 2001 registered under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest on Depositors and Financial Establishments Act (in short, "TNPID Act"). It is stated by her that the Venkatesan was not at all the owner and he is a third party to the property and on his statement that he has executed sale deed in favour of petitioner, the property has been attached. Therefore, it is contended that attachment of the property was erroneous. 2. However, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The provisions of the TNPID Act are very clear that under Section 3 of the Act, the attachment of the properties on default of return of deposits has been contemplated and when the Government has reason to believe that any financial establishment is acting in a calculated manner with an intention to defraud the depositors such an attachment is made. Under Section 6 of the said Act, Special Courts have been constituted. The Special Court has powers under Section 7 regarding attachment, sale, realisation and distribution of properties. Under Section 6 of the said Act, Special Courts have been constituted. The Special Court has powers under Section 7 regarding attachment, sale, realisation and distribution of properties. Under Section 7(6), the Special Court has power to go into the nature of ownership of attached properties and also conferred with the power of Civil Court. Apart from the attachment of the property of the financial establishment, even in respect of properties, which are obtained through malafide transfers and also be attached in terms of Section 8. Therefore, the remedy open to the petitioner is to move the appropriate Special Court seeking raising of attachment in respect of the property and cannot lead any evidence to state that Venkatesan, from whom, she purchased the property is no way connected with her and the property in question was not obtained by virtue of any malafide transfers. The provisions of the Act came to be upheld by this Court in S.BhagavathiVs. State Government reported in 2007(2) CTC 207 . The said judgment was further confirmed by the Supreme Court in K.K.baskaranVs. State reported in (2011) 3 SCC 793 . The Supreme Court while upholding the provisions of the Act and confirming the Full Bench judgment has also held that the default in payment of financial institutions also necessitated the State to conceive a new legislation and that cannot be tinkered with. Further, the Full Bench while construing the provisions of Section 7 in paragraph No.16.2 has held that it is a salient provision under which the properties can be attached even without notice and the remedy open to the aggrieved person is to move appropriate Special Court and cannot file writ petition challenging the same. 3. Though learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the provision of alternative remedy cannot be a bar to file writ petition, in this case, it is not alternative remedy and is only remedy under the Act and this Court cannot interfere with the order passed by the State Government, that too, ten years before. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.