Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 628 (MAD)

Leon v. District Collector, Tenkasi

2020-03-12

G.R.SWAMINATHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate action on the basis of the first petitioner's representation dated 27.11.2019 on Crime No.2 of 2017 in 4th respondent police and may identify the assets as 5th respondent company forfeit the same and may settle the dues of the petitioners after disposing the properties of 5th respondent. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action on the basis of the first petitioner's representation dated 27.11.2019 on Crime No.2 of 2017 on the file of the 3rd respondent police and may identify the assets as 4th respondent company forfeit the same and may settle the dues of the petitioners after disposing the properties of 4th respondent. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 for conducting proper enquiry and appropriate action against the respondents 3 to 10 on the basis of the petitioner's representations dated 12.04.2018 and 19.03.2019 within a time frame fixed by this Court.) Common Order 1. The writ petitioner is one of the depositors in APSAL India Ltd., which is having its headquarter at Madurai. The said company had engaged in real-estate activities. It had also collected deposits from a large number of persons to fund its business operations. The company had given an offer to the depositors that either it will return the matured amount with interest or it would allot a house site. The company was able to attract thousands of depositors with its promises. It appears that almost 100 Crores of Rupees was collected in this fashion. But due to certain reasons, the business of the company came to a stand still. It was not in a position to honour its promises. However, the management of the company claims that they had settled to the tune almost 35 Crores of Rupees and that they have to repay a sum of Rs.64,35,30,120/- more. According to the company, some 60,000 depositors will have to be settled. Of course, this figure is disputed by some of the learned counsel representing the various depositors. 2. However, the management of the company claims that they had settled to the tune almost 35 Crores of Rupees and that they have to repay a sum of Rs.64,35,30,120/- more. According to the company, some 60,000 depositors will have to be settled. Of course, this figure is disputed by some of the learned counsel representing the various depositors. 2. Be that as it may, it is submitted that that the company is possessed of valuable properties and that if they are sold, the claims of all the depositors can be easily settled. To this effect, the Managing Director of the company has filed an affidavit before this Court. There appears to be a consensus between the company management on the one hand and the depositors on the other. Both of them feel that if a committee headed by a learned retired Judge of this Court is constituted and the same is allowed to take possession of the property and the dispose it of, the entire issue can be resolved. On the other hand, if the prosecution continues and culminates in the form of charge sheet and if the case is posted before the learned Special Court, the matter would be lingering for an indefinite period of time. 3. The learned counsel on either side bring to my notice an order dated 27.08.2019 passed in W.P.No.24057 of 2019 in a similar case. The learned counsel on either side call upon this Court to pass an order on the same lines. 4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the defaulting establishment has volunteered to repay the depositors, this Court is inclined to appoint a committee to ensure that the claims of the depositors settled as expeditiously as possible. 5. The committee will be headed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice Suthanthiram (Retd.). His Lordship will be assisted by the Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing II, Madurai from the side of the police and Mr.Chandrasekar, the Manager of APSAL India Ltd., from the side of the company. The company will identify an office place at Madurai to enable the committee to carry on its activities. 6. The Hon'ble Judge, who is appointed to head the committee, shall decide upon the functioning of the committee and the manner in which, the deposits are going to be repaid back to the customers. The company will identify an office place at Madurai to enable the committee to carry on its activities. 6. The Hon'ble Judge, who is appointed to head the committee, shall decide upon the functioning of the committee and the manner in which, the deposits are going to be repaid back to the customers. The Hon'ble Judge can decide with regard to the assistance required in terms of accounting/auditing etc., and the same shall be provided by the company. 7. If the Hon'ble Judge heading the committee is of the view that the committee should also visit certain other places, in order to repay back the deposits, discretion is given to the Hon'ble Judge to take a decision on the same and the petitioner company is directed to extend its fullest co-operation in that regard. 8. The petitioner company is directed to pay a monthly remuneration of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) to the Hon'ble Judge and also meet his travelling expenses and ensure a comfortable stay, as and when, he visits Maduari. 9. The writ petitions are disposed of on these terms. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.