Madras High Court
U.Bhuvaneshwari vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 16 June, 2022
C.M.A.No.131 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A.No.131 of 2018
U.Bhuvaneshwari ...Appellant
Vs.
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Economic Offence Wing-II,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
2. The District Revenue Officer / Competent
Authority, Kancheepuram. ... Respondents
Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section
11 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial
Establishments) Act, 1997 against the fair and decretal order dated
18.08.2017 passed by the Special Judge under TNPID Act, 1977,
Chennai in O.P.No.4 of 2015 and prays to set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr. Gautam S.Raman
For Respondents
1 and 2 : Dr.S.Surya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
C.M.A.No.131 of 2018
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the dismissal of her application filed under Section
7(3) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial
Establishments)Act, 1997 ( hereinafter called the "Act") praying to raise
the order of attachment passed in G.O.Ms.No.1023, dated 26.10.2006,
the appellant is before this Court.
2. The facts in brief are as follows:-
(i) The petitioner's husband Umapathi Sivam and one
Gurumoorthy and his wife, Abayambigai had formed a partnership firm
in the name of "Sri Devi Finance" and were running a finance business.
It appears that in the 1989, the firm was dissolved. The appellant herein
had purchased the petition mentioned property on 14.07.1993, much after
the dissolution of the partnership firm. The said property is the subject
matter of the Original Application No.4 of 2015.
(ii) Mean while, it appears that a complaint was received from
some depositors against Sri Devi Finance Company, wherein, the
depositors have stated that they have been induced to deposit their hard
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.131 of 2018
earned money by the said Gurumoorthy and his wife, Abayambigai, who
had not returned the same. A charge sheet was registered against the
Firm, Sri Devi Finance Company, Gurumoorthy, Abayambigai and
Umapathy Sivam in the year 2002. The three of them were charged under
Section 5 of the "Act" and the charge against them was that they had
cheated 30 depositors out of a sum of Rs.14,91,346/-.
(iii) In the meantime, on 29.01.2002, the appellant had availed a
loan of Rs.1,10,000/- with the Co-operative Bank, Chennai and
mortgaged the petition mentioned property. This loan was fully
discharged on 31.07.2007. It appears that on 26.10.2006, the appellant's
property had been attached under Section 3 of the "Act". In the mean
while, the case against the accused was split as C.C.No.15 of 2002
against the first accused, the Finance Company and as C.C.No.38 of
2007 against third and fourth accused. The petitioner's husband,
Umapathy Sivam was acquitted, by order dated 21.07.2011 holding that
no case had been made out against him under Section 5 of the "Act".
During the investigation, the depositors have fairly conceded that they
have never had any dealings with the appellant's husband, it was only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.131 of 2018
Gurumoorthy and Abayambigai, who had induced them into making the
deposit.
(iv) On coming to learn about the attachment of the property, the
appellant had filed a Writ Petition No.3111 of 2013 before this Court,
seeking a mandamus, directing the respondent(s) therein to return her
title documents. This Writ Petition was disposed of, by order dated
18.08.2014 with a direction to approach the competent authority under
the "Act".
(v) Pursuant to the said direction, the appellant herein had filed
the impugned application in O.A.No.4 of 2015 on the file of the Special
Court, TNPID for raising the attachment. This application came to be
dismissed by the learned Special Judge, TNPID Court on 18.08.2017,
stating that the appellant has not proved the fact that she has purchased
the petition mentioned property from out of her own income and
therefore, since there is no pleading regarding the source of income, her
application has to definitely be rejected. Challenging the same, the
appellant is before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.131 of 2018
3. Mr.Gautam S.Raman, learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant would contend that the Firm had been dissolved as early
as in the year 1989 and thereafter, there is no dealings between the
appellant's husband and other two partners of Sri Devi Finance Company.
The property that has been attached has also been purchased much later,
i.e in the year 1993, when the appellant's husband had no dealings with
the Finance Company. He would submit that the order of the learned
Special Judge, TNPID Court requires to be re-considered and the
attachment raised.
4. Dr.S.Surya, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents would submit that the source of income for
the purchase of the properties is only the deposits made by the various
depositors in the Finance Company, in which, the appellant's husband
was a partner. The appellant is not in a position to explain the source of
income and therefore, the order does not require to be set aside.
5. Heard both counsels and perused the materials available on
record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.131 of 2018
6. Admittedly, the partnership firm, Sri Devi Finance Company
had been dissolved in the year 1989, as evidenced by Ex.P99 marked in
C.C.No.15 of 2002. Therefore, it follows that the partners had settled
also their inter se claims. Further, the appellant's husband has also been
acquitted from the charge by holding that he has no interest in the said
Sri Devi Finance Company. The purchase of the petition mentioned
property is in the year 1993, nearly 4 years after the dissolution of the
Firm. The application has been dismissed, since the appellant has not
been able to prove her source of income for the purchase of the property.
This finding cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that her
husband had retired from the Firm, Sri Devi Finance Company in the
year 1993 itself. The complaint was lodged by the depositors alleging
that in the year 1997, deposits had been collected from them by the other
two partners, Gurumoorthy and Abayambigai. Therefore, it is clearly
evident that the property in question is the individual property of the
appellant, which cannot be attached for the dues of a Firm, in which,
neither the appellant nor her husband has involved with from the year
1989. It is also seen from the records that the property in question has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.131 of 2018
been acquired under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, which
has already been challenged by the appellant herein.
7. In view of the above, the order passed in O.A.No.4 of 2015
dated 18.08.2017 is set aside and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands
allowed. No costs.
16.06.2022
Index :Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
srn
To
1. The Special Judge, TNPID Court, Chennai - 104.
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.131 of 2018
P.T.ASHA.J,
srn
C.M.A.No.131 of 2018
16.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
