Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs M/S Vcan Active Carbon Private ... on 19 September, 2023
W.A.No.468 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.09.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.A.No.468 of 2020
1. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation
No.692, Anna Salai, Nandanam
Chennai
2. The Branch Manager
Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation
DDDC Building Upstairs
Pennagaram Road
Dharmapuri 636 702 .. Appellants
v.
1. M/s VCAN Active Carbon Private Limited
rep.by its Director, Kanniah Vikram Dixit
Plot No.21, Door No.6, Vaishnavi Apartments
3rd Cross Street, Shastri Nagar
Adyar, Chennai 600 020
2. J.S.Rajkumar
3. J.Arunpadmanaban .. Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.468 of 2020
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
order dated 22.11.2019 made in W.P.No.29773 of 2019.
For Appellants :: Mr.K.Magesh
For Respondents :: No appearance for R1 & R3
R2-given up
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by P.B.BALAJI,J.)
The respondents 1 & 2 in the Writ Petition No.29773 of 2019 have
preferred the present appeal, as against the order of the writ Court dated
22.11.2019.
2. The writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of a mandamus
directing the respondents 1 and 2 to allow the petitioner company to remove
the machineries, plants and generators and other materials which are not
hypothecated to respondents 1 and 2 and which are not listed in the auction
notice dated 10.11.2018 from the factory premises M/S VCAN Active
Carbon Private Limited at Plot No.116, Sipcot, Parandapalli Village,
Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District and to refund a sum of Rs.75,17,718/- to
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.468 of 2020
the petitioner company and the surety documents pertaining to the Term
Loan dated 02.02.2013 and working capital loan dated 05.03.2014. The writ
Court, after hearing the parties, directed that certain items of machineries
were not part of the initial mortgage in favour of the appellants herein and
therefore directed those specific items to be handed over to the writ
petitioner and the remaining items of machineries to be handed over to the
auction purchaser. However, insofar as the documents which were sought
to be returned as prayed for by the writ petitioner, the writ Court directed
that the documents be handed over to the petitioner company. This portion
of the order is being challenged in the present writ appeal, on the ground
that the appellants cannot be directed to handover the documents given by
the surety, since the entire loan amount has not been settled and they are
entitled to proceed against the writ petitioner, the original borrower, for
recovering the balance amount of dues.
3. The first respondent/writ petitioner has been served with notice.
However, they have not chosen to appear either in person or through a
counsel. The second respondent-auction purchaser has been given up by the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.468 of 2020
appellants.
4. We have heard Mr.K.Magesh, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants. We have also perused the records and also the order of the writ
Court. It is also clear from the grounds of appeal that the appellants only
seek for a clarification with regard to the portion of the impugned order
directing them to return the documents to the writ petitioner, as an amount
of Rs.14,63,034/- and additional due of Rs.69,258/- is still to be recovered
by the appellant Corporation from the writ petitioner and the surety. The
said contention of the learned counsel for the appellants deserves
consideration, since the property has already been auctioned and a portion
of the entire dues to the appellant Corporation has been recovered.
However, when there is substantial amount that is still to be recovered, the
right of the appellants cannot be scuttled by directing the handover of
documents of the surety to the writ petitioner. Thus, we find merit in the
writ appeal and accordingly clarify the order of the writ Court that so far as
the direction to the appellants to handover the documents to the petitioner
company is concerned, the said portion of the order shall not pertain to the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.468 of 2020
documents of the surety retained by the appellants, for proceeding against
the same for recovering the balance amount due to the appellants. With this
clarification, the order of the writ Court is partially modified and the writ
appeal stands partly allowed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.7200 of 2020 is
closed. No order as to costs.
(D.K.K.,J.) (P.B.B,J.)
Index : yes/no 19.09.2023
Neutral citation : yes/no
ss
To
1. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation
No.692, Anna Salai, Nandanam
Chennai
2. The Branch Manager
Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation
DDDC Building Upstairs
Pennagaram Road
Dharmapuri
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.468 of 2020
D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.
AND
P.B.BALAJI,J.
ss
W.A.No.468 of 2020
19.09.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
