Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment vs R.Velumani on 20 October, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.10.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.A.No.2233 of 2021
Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment
Corporation Limited,
692, Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai - 35. .. Appellant
Vs
R.Velumani .. Respondent
Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the
order dated 24.07.2017 in W.P.No.36514 of 2004.
For Appellant .. Mr.M.Arun Kumar
for M/s.Sampathkumar and Associates
For Respondent .. Mr.A.K.Sriram
for M/s.A.S.Kailasam and Associates
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order of learned Single
Judge dated 24 July, 2017 in W.P.No.36514 of 2004.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the
petitioner was not entitled to the refund of any amount, since the
entire amount of Rs.60,000/- was towards earnest money. It is
submitted that error has crept up in the order of learned Single Judge
in which only Rs.5,000/- was treated as the earnest money and
Rs.55,000/- is ordered to be refunded. It is submitted that this appeal
be entertained.
3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent has
submitted that, learned Single Judge has rightly arrived at the
conclusion that the amount of earnest money was only Rs.5,000/- and
Rs.60,000/- could not have been treated towards earnest money.
Attention of the Court is also invited to the observations made by the
learned Single Judge, the manner in which the matter was attended to
by the present appellant authorities. It is submitted that, no
interference be made by this Court.
4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and
having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under:
http://www.judis.nic.in
4.1. An amount of Rs.60,000/- was forfeited
by the present appellant treating that amount to
be earnest money. When this was challenged
before this Court, though counter affidavit was
filed, no material was placed before learned Single
Judge to point out how an amount of Rs.60,000/-
was treated to be earnest money. On the basis of
the pleadings, learned Single Judge arrived at the
conclusion that the earnest money was only
Rs.5,000/- and the amount of Rs.55,000/- was
required to be refunded to the writ petitioner.
4.2. Learned Single Judge also noted that
there was less motivation on the part of the
contesting respondent (the present appellant) to
proceed with the matter on merits.
4.3. Be that as it may, when learned Single
Judge arrived at the conclusion, on the basis of
the material before this Court, that the contesting
respondent/present appellant was entitled to
http://www.judis.nic.in
forfeit only an amount of Rs.5,000/- and balance
amount of Rs.55,000/- is ordered to be refunded,
we do not find any error in the order of learned
Single Judge which may call for any interference
by us in an intra-court appeal.
5. No interference is required.
6. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. C.M.P.No.14116 of
2021 is closed.
(P.U., J) (S.S.K., J.)
20.10.2021
Index:No
ssm
http://www.judis.nic.in
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
ssm
W.A.No.2233 of 2021
20.10.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
