Madras High Court
Dhanasekaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 19 January, 2021
C.M.A.Nos.640 & 641 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.Nos.640 & 641 of 2016
and
C.M.P.Nos.5303 & 5304 of 2016
Dhanasekaran ..Appellant in both CMAs
Vs.
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Economic Offences Wing – II,
Coimbatore.
2.M/s.Keyes Mercantile,
D.No.13/117, Green Field Road,
Nethra Garden, Nehru Nagar (West)
Kalapathy, Coimbatore.
3.Seshu Onfle Infotech Pvt. Ltd.,
1088-A, Meenakshi Nagar,
Thadagam Road, Coimbatore – 2.
4.K.Sasirekha
5.C.Kalki
6.S.Sudharsan
7.R.Seshagiri Rao
8.S.Deepa Sudharsan
9.A.Suresh ..Respondents in both CMAs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.640 & 641 of 2016
Prayer in C.M.A.No.640 of 2016: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Order 43 Rule 1of C.P.C., read with Section 11 of Tamil Nadu
Protection of Interest Depositors Act, to set aside the order passed in
I.A.No.27 of 2015 in O.A.No.7 of 2011 on the file of the Special Judge
under TNPID Net Cases, Coimbatore and the order passed by the Lower
Court in I.A.No.27 of 2015 dated 04.02.2016.
Prayer in C.M.A.No.641 of 2016: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Order 43 Rule 1of C.P.C., read with Section 11 of Tamil Nadu
Protection of Interest Depositors Act, to set aside the order passed in
I.A.No.28 of 2015 in O.A.No.7 of 2011 on the file of the Special Judge
under TNPID Net Cases, Coimbatore and the order passed by the Lower
Court in I.A.No.28 of 2015 dated 04.02.2016.
For Appellant : M/s.Umasuthan
[in both CMAs]
For Respondents : Mr.S.Jeganathan
Government Advocate(CS)
[For R1]
[in both CMAs]
No appearance – R9
R2 to R8 – Left
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.640 & 641 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT
The orders dated 04.02.2016 passed in I.A.Nos.27 and 28 of 2015
in O.A.No.7 of 2011 passed by the Special Court under TNPID Act,
Coimbatore are under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous
Appeals.
2. The 1st respondent / Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Economic Offences Wing – II, Coimbatore filed O.A.No.7 of 2011
under Section 8 of TNPID Act. In the Original Application, the
appellant herein filed Interlocutory Applications to re-open the evidence
in order to summon the 4th respondent, 6th respondent and 50 persons
mentioned in Annexure-I to give evidence in O.A.No.7 of 2011. The
said 50 persons are the poor depositors, who deposited their hard-earned
money with the financial company. The Criminal case was registered.
The petitioner claims that all the 50 depositors are to be examined by
reopening the evidence.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant states that he is already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.640 & 641 of 2016
repaid the deposit amount to the persons, who deposited.
4. However, these factors are to be adjudicated in the original
application and by re-opening the evidence, the same cannot be done
and such a petition filed to examine all the depositors would fructify the
proceedings itself. As rightly contended by the trial Court, such
Interlocutory Applications are filed in order to prolong and protract the
issues, which cannot be encouraged at all. Undoubtedly, the appellant is
at liberty to raise the points and the grounds in the main application.
However, the relief as such sought for in the Interlocutory Applications
to reopen the evidence at this stage is certainly not permissible and the
reasonings furnished by the trial Court are candid and convincing.
5. The trial Court categorically made a finding that 4th and 6th
respondents are not the owners of the properties and the persons shown
in the schedule are not cited as witnesses and the petitioner, who has
been shown as 8th respondent in O.A.No.7 of 2011 closed his side
already. O.A.No.7 of 2011 has been posted for arguments. At this stage,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.640 & 641 of 2016
the Interlocutory Applications are filed to re-open the evidence in order
to drag the proceedings in O.A.No.7 of 2011.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant states that even during the
pendency of the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, the trial Court
proceeded with the Original Application. However, the Original
Application filed in the year 2011 is pending for the past about 9 years,
which would certainly caused prejudice to the interest of the depositors,
who had deposited their hard-earned money.
7. Thus, all the issues are to be adjudicated without causing any
further delay and by affording an opportunity to all the parties
concerned. Accordingly, the orders dated 04.02.2016 passed in
I.A.Nos.27 and 28 of 2015 are confirmed and consequently, the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeals in C.M.A.Nos.640 and 641 of 2016 stands
dismissed.
8. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the Original
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.640 & 641 of 2016
Application in O.A.No.7 of 2011, as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgement and the parties to the Original Application are
directed to co-operate for the early disposal of the matter.
9. The parties to the appeal are restrained from seeking
unnecessary adjournments. Adjournments are to be granted only on
genuine grounds and by recording reasons. Adjournments on flimsy
grounds are to be rejected in limine by all Courts. The parties cannot be
given privilege of getting adjournments for their benefit in order to
prolong and protract the issues. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
19.01.2021
kak
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.640 & 641 of 2016
To
1. The Special Judge under
TNPID Net Cases,
Coimbatore.
2.The Sub-Assistant Registrar,
A.E.Section,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.640 & 641 of 2016
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
C.M.A.Nos.640 & 641 of 2016
19.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
