T.Abdul Sait vs The Tamilnadu Industrial ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5956 Mad

                                                                           W.A.(MD)No.168 of 2021


                            BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED: 05.03.2021
                                                    CORAM:
                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
                                                       AND
                               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

                                          W.A.(MD)No.168 of 2021 and
                                           CMP(MD) No.5227 of 2020

                      T.Abdul Sait                                          :Appellant
                                                       Vs.
                      1.The Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd.,
                        Theni Branch
                        Theni District.

                      2.The Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd.,
                        Special Recovery Branch
                        No.3 Vaigai Colony
                        Annanagar Madurai.

                      3.S.Pandi @ Susi Tamil Pandian                        : Respondents


                      PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the

                      order of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.1830/2012 dated 06.02.2019.

                                  For Appellant           : Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan
                                  For Respondents         : Mr.G.Murugan for R1 & R2
                                                          Mr.Thalaimutharasu for R3


                      1/6

http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                               W.A.(MD)No.168 of 2021


                                                    JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the

dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge in a writ

petition filed seeking to set aside the tender cum auction sale notice

followed by the sale deed executed in the year 2008 - 2009.

2. The appellant is the borrower. Having committed the default, a

symbolic possession was taken. The machineries belonging to the

appellant was sold way back in the year 2005. Thereafter, the immovable

property was taken up for auction. It was brought up for auction for six

times. On the 6th occasion, the private respondent became the successful

bidder. The sale was confirmed in his favour. The appellant came

forward to file the writ petition challenging the auction notice held in the

year 2008 followed by the execution of sale deed in the year 2009. The

learned Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay, laches

and acquiescence.

http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.168 of 2021

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is a

procedural violation with respect to extension of time. Unilaterally the

first respondent cannot extend the time. Reliance has been made on the

Division Bench judgment in Sri Anbalayam Textiles Private Limited,

rep. by its Chairman v. The Chairman cum Managing Director, TIIC.

Chennai and others reported in 2011 (6) CTC 858.

4. The learned counsel for the private respondent submitted that

the sale deed executed on 23.11.2009 was sought to be challenged by

way of writ petition in the year 2012. Thus, rightly the learned Judge

dismissed the writ petition. Now, the private respondent is in possession

and enjoyment of the property.

5. As stated above, this is the 6th auction conducted. It is not as if

the appellant was not aware of the auction conducted, even against the

collateral estate, for which, constructive possession was taken. A suit

was filed by him in the year 2008 itself. Therefore, the appellant cannot

http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.168 of 2021

feign ignorance. What has been challenged is the tender cum auction.

The appellant cannot challenge the subsequent sale without even laying a

challenge to the auction conducted. In such view of the matter, we do

not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Judge,

especially when the very same property has been mortgaged by the

appellant to the Agricultural Cooperative Bank suppressing the loan

obtained from the respondent No.1. The appellant has neither challenged

the auction notice nor the possession taken. Therefore, looking from any

perspective, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the

learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No

costs.

                                                                 [M.M.S., J.] & [S.A.I, J.]
                                                                        05.03.2021
                      Index       : Yes/No
                      Internet    : Yes

                      RR






http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                           W.A.(MD)No.168 of 2021



                      To

1.The Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Theni Branch Theni District.

2.The Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Special Recovery Branch No.3 Vaigai Colony Annanagar Madurai.

http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.168 of 2021

M.M.SUNDRESH, J AND S.ANANTHI, J

RR

Order made in W.A.(MD)No.168 of 2021

05.03.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in