Madras High Court
Chennai Port Trust vs Indian Bank on 3 June, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.11063 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 18.04.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 03.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.11063 of 2021
Chennai Port Trust,
Rep. by its Financial Advisor and
Chief Accounts Officer,
Chennai Port Trust,
Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001. ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1. Indian Bank
Rep. by its Managing Director & CEO,
Corporate Office,
254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.
2. The Executive Director,
Indian Bank,
Corporate Office,
254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.
3. The Zonal Manager,
Indian Bank,
Zonal Office – Chennai North,
5th Floor, Indian Bank Head Office Building,
66, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 28
W.P.No.11063 of 2021
4. Indian Bank, Koyambedu Branch,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Koyambedu, Chennai.
5. The General Manager/
Chief Operating Officer,
Indian Bank, Corporate Office,
254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.
6. Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
ACB Haddows Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
7. The Chief General Manager-in-Charge,
Department of Government and Bank Account,
Reserve Bank of India,
Central Office, 4th Floor,
Byculla Office Building,
Opp. Mumbai Central Station,
Byculla, Mumbai – 400 008.
(R6 & R7 impleaded vide order dated
06.07.2021 made in W.M.P.No.
13600/2021 in W.P.No.11063/2021) ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay
the sum of Rs.107.16 Crores (Rupees one hundred and seven crores and
sixteen lakhs only), the sum of Rs.100.57 Crores (Rupees one hundred
crores and fifty seven lakhs only) being the principal sum deposited by
the Chennai Port Trust as fixed deposits at the fourth respondent bank in
the month of March, April and May 2020 and the sum of Rs.6.59 Crores
(Rupees six crores and fifty nine lakhs only) being accrued and payable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2 of 28
W.P.No.11063 of 2021
interest on the above said principal deposit amount and interest as is
payable till date of payment to the Chennai Port Trust, within a period of
time that may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,
Additional Solicitor General of India
For M/s.Harshini Jothiraman
For Respondents
For R1 to R5 : Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Senior Counsel
For Mr.T.Sundar Rajan
For R6 : Mr.K.Srinivasan, Senior Counsel
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases
For R7 : Mr.C.Mohan
For M/s.King & Partidge
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for direction, directing the
respondents 1 to 5, to pay the sum of Rs.107.16 Crores with interest.
2. The petitioner was constituted under the Major Port Trusts
Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and it is governed by a
Board of Trustees duly appointed by the Central Government. It
receives large sums of money for its commercial operations and it to be
spent in accordance with Section 88 of the Act. The excess funds lying
in the account cannot be put to use immediately be applied in the manner
specified under Section 88(2) of the Act. It stipulates that the Port Trust
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
shall deposit the excess funds that cannot be immediately applied in the
manner set out in Section Section 88(1) of the Act with various bodies
set out in Section 88(2)(a) of the Act. Accordingly the money has to be
deposited in any nationalized bank.
3. In the month of March 2020, the petitioner intended to
deposit about Rs.100 crores as fixed deposit. The petitioner sought to
invest its funds in fixed deposit in non-callable category and obtained
quotes from the nationalized banks including the fourth respondent
branch. The terms and conditions on which the deposits were sought to
be made inter alia provided that the petitioner would not foreclose their
fixed deposit or demand the monies at any time before its maturity date.
The sealed quotes received from various banks and satisfying with the
quote offered by the fourth respondent and the petitioner decided to
invest its funds with the fourth respondent bank.
4. Accordingly, the petitioner transferred the funds to the
fourth respondent branch by electronic transfer, to make investment of
fixed deposits on non-callable basis by five transactions i.e., on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
07.03.2020 a sum of Rs.1.99 crores; on 16.03.2020 a sum of Rs.1.99
crores; on 21.03.2020 a sum of Rs. 22.69 crores; on 20.04.2020 a sum of
Rs.11.82 crores and on 04.05.2020 a sum of Rs.62.08 crores, totally to
the tune of Rs.10.57 crores. On receipt of the same, the fourth
respondent bank had issued fixed deposit receipts in the following
manner :-
Sl. Date of deposit Fixed Deposit Fixed Deposit
No. amount (in Rs.) receipt number
1 07.03.2020 1,99,00,000 0984664
2 16.03.2020 1,99,00,000 0984669
3 21.03.2020 4,90,00,000 0984676
4 21.03.2020 4,11,00,000 0984677
5 21.03.2020 4,90,00,000 0984675
6 21.03.2020 4,90,00,000 0984678
7 21.03.2020 1,90,00,000 0984680
8 21.03.2020 34,00,000 0984679
9 21.03.2020 1,64,00,000 0984681
10 20.04.2020 4,90,00,000 0984702
11 20.04.2020 4,93,50,000 0984701
12 20.04.2020 1,99,00,000 0984703
13 04.05.2020 36,00,00,000 0984738
14 04.05.2020 26,08,00,000 0984739
The above funds were debited by the State Bank of India through RTGS.
These deposits could not have been encashed until the date of its
maturity, since the investment were made under non-callable category.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. While being so, on 14.05.2020, the petitioner received mail
from the fourth respondent stating that the fixed deposit receipts opened
on 05.05.2020 for a sum of Rs. 62.08 crores was closed on 08.05.2020.
Further stated that the interest had not been paid in view of the fact that
the deposit has been closed on 08.05.2020 viz., within a period of three
days from the date of deposit. Further on 15.05.2020, the petitioner
received a cheque book from the fourth respondent for a current account
No.6867825525, in the name of Chennai Port Trust General Insurance
Fund. The said account was never opened by the petitioner at any point
of time. Therefore, the petitioner immediately put on notice to the first
respondent about the closure of fixed deposit and also opening of the
account in the name of Chennai Port Trust General Insurance Fund to the
respondents 1 to 3 herein.
6. By the communication dated 20.05.2020, it was confirmed
by the second respondent about the opening of the account and closure
of the fixed deposit and further sated that an internal investigation is
under process at the respondents' end. Immediately, the petitioner lodged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
complaint before the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter
referred to as “CBI”) on 21.05.2020 and produced all original files,
documents, certificates, registers, e-transactions and all other related
materials connected with the deposit made by the petitioner. All the
original deposit receipts were handed over before the investigation
agency for investigation purpose.
7. Further by the communication dated 23.06.2020, the second
respondent informed the petitioner that all the original fixed deposits
receipts were surrendered and after closure, entire money under the fixed
deposit were credited to the current account viz., Chennai Port Trust
General Insurance Fund. Further in respect of the complaint, the
investigation has been entrusted to law enforcement agency and it is
under progress. According to the petitioner, they never opened any
account and no person authorized to close the fixed deposit. However,
the petitioner was informed by the second respondent by its
communication dated 09.07.2020 that the said current account was
opened by impersonator representing as Deputy Director Finance,
Chennai Port Trust as authorized signatory. Therefore, the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sought for refund of entire deposit amount by way of this present writ
petition.
8. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing
for the petitioner submitted that the respondents 1 to 4 are responsible
for security of the money which was deposited by the petitioner in the
fixed deposit. Though the CBI had registered a FIR, it is nothing to do
with the fixed deposit money, which was deposited by the petitioner. The
entire deposits were made under the non-callable category and as such it
could not be pre-closed even at the request of the petitioner. The
respondents are liable to return the fixed deposit amount and it cannot be
said that they are estoped with repayment of fixed deposit amount, till
the criminal proceedings complete. Therefore, they are liable to pay the
entire deposit amount along with interest as per the terms of the contract
between the parties and the alleged fraud perpetrated in the forth
respondent is neither an excuse nor a defense to discharge of their
liability. Therefore, the liability to honour the dues as a debtor of the
petitioner is unconditional. The pendency of the investigation is no way
hampering the payment of amount due under the fixed deposits and a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fraud said to have been committed at the bank level is no defense to the
liability. Admittedly, the fixed deposit which were made by the
petitioner had been closed by some misappropriation or impersonation
that too during the current year of the fixed deposit and before its
maturity. The respondents allowed the impersonator to take away the
money to different account. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay
the fixed deposit amount with accrued interest as agreed by them.
9. The third respondent filed counter and also the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that when the
depositor produced original deposit receipt along with a request to pre-
closure, the bank cannot refuse and it bounded to pre-close the fixed
deposit. There is no specific contract between the petitioner and the
respondents 1 to 5 which stipulating that the deposits are non-callable.
Though the tender form calls for quotes in respect of callable and non
callable deposits in some cases, the nature of deposits have not been
specifically mentioned while making the investments on five occasions.
The petitioner was never issued with as non-callable deposit. It was only
fixed deposit which called as fixed term deposit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9.1. He further submitted that after issuance of fixed deposit
receipts, one Ganesh Natarajan approached the fourth respondent
representing on behalf of the petitioner as Deputy Director of Finance of
the petitioner along with one Manimozhi for opening current account in
the name of the petitioner and submitted application form in compliance
with KYC norms. He had produced his identity card issued by the
petitioner and his PAN card, Aadhar card and other documents such as
the petitioner's Board resolution dated 06.03.2020, thereby authorized
him to open a current account. Simultaneously, the said Manimozhi had
also opened a saving bank account in his own name in the fourth
respondent branch.
9.2. As per the E-mail of the petitioner, thereby calling for
quotation of interest for the fixed deposit, the fourth respondent had sent
a tender quote. After accepting the interest rate quoted by the fourth
respondent, the petitioner had made deposits. After opening the current
account, the said Ganesh Natarajan had visited to the fourth respondent
bank and handed over original fixed term deposit receipts dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.03.2020 related to the first transaction and requested to pre-close the
fixed deposit and also made a request to credit the amount to the above
current account opened in the name of the petitioner. Once again, on
19.03.2020, the said Ganesh Natarajan handed over the fixed deposit
receipts in respect of the second transaction and made request of pre-
closure and the money to be credited in the current account. Thereafter
again on 31.03.2020, the said Ganesh Natarajan had made a request to
pre-closure of fixed deposit and credit the said amount in the current
account by producing original fixed deposit receipts relating to the third
transaction. Thereafter, on 23.04.2020, the said Ganesh Natarajan
requested to pre-close the fixed deposit in respect of fourth transaction
and also credit the said amount to the current account on production of
original fixed deposit receipts. Finally, on 08.05.2020, the said Ganesh
Natarajan had made request to pre-close the fixed deposit in respect of
the fifth and final transaction and requested to credit the said amount
into current account by producing the fixed deposit receipts.
9.3. Later, the respondents came to understand that the said
persons, who had opened the account in the name of the petitioner, are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
impersonators and connivance with the officials of the petitioner and
also with the help of the branch Manager, they have opened the current
account and entire amount had been credited into the current account and
also transferred to various accounts. Immediately, they lodged complaint
and the CBI had registered a case in RC.032/2020A/0006/CBI/ACB,
Chennai and filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in
C.C.No.16 of 2022 on the file of the learned VIII Additional Judge,
Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai and it
is pending for trial.
9.4. Whatever the amounts which were lying in the current
account were refunded to the petitioner. Some of the money was also
recovered by the investigation agency and some of the properties of the
accused persons were attached towards recovery of the criminal
proceedings. In fact, the petitioner was informed that the respondents are
ready to provide indemnity bond for the remaining amount. However it
was not accepted by the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9.5. He further submitted that the fraud had been committed
with the help of the officials of the petitioner as well as the fourth
respondent bank. Now the investigation completed and the trial is
pending before the trial Court. Only after completion of the trial, the
liability of the respondents as well as the petitioner will come to light.
Till then the direction sought for in this writ petition cannot be issued for
refund of entire deposited money. Further the amounts which were
already seized by the investigation agency and it is proceeds of criminal
proceedings.
9.6. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgement
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 247 in the case of Municipal Council
Gondia Vs. Divi Works & Supplier, HUF and ors., in which, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that there are disputed question of
facts such as, whether the goods were manufactured as per the
specification or not. Nothing was on record that the goods were in fact
and actually manufactured by the petitioner as per the specifications and
the requirements of the council and as per the work order. In the absence
of any evidence and material on record and there being disputed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
questions of facts, it ought not to have been issue Mandamus to make the
payments as per the work order. Even otherwise, no writ of mandamus
could have been issued virtually granting the writ for specific
performance of the contract or work order under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. They ought to have filed civil suit for appropriate
relief of losses or damages.
10. While pending the writ petition, the CBI and the Reserve
Bank of India have been impleaded as respondents 6 & 7 in this writ
petition. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing for the
sixth respondent submitted that on complaint, FIR has been registered
and after completion of investigation they filed final report and the same
has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.16 of 2022 on the file of the
learned VIII Additional Judge, Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases,
City Civil Court, Chennai and it is pending for trial. While investigation
search was made and attached the immovable properties. Further during
investigation a sum of Rs.55 crores which were frozen by the fourth
respondent was returned to the petitioner and remaining sum of Rs.45
crores, which had been swindled and transferred to various accounts by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the accused persons, are yet to be recovered. A sum of Rs.13.68 laksh
was seized from the premises of the accused and produced before the
trial Court. It was deposited as fixed deposit. A sum of Rs.1 crore was
frozen in the beneficiaries bank accounts so far. Further, the accused
persons converted the defrauded amounts into immovable properties and
the said properties worth about Rs.9 crores were attached.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent
submitted that there is no category of non-callable deposit while making
fixed deposit. Whatever fixed deposit made, thereafter on the request of
the depositor, it can be pre-closed. The said Ganesh Narayanan is
arrayed as first accused and the said Manimozhi is arrayed as second
accused. The fourth respondent bank Manager is arrayed as third accused
and 26th accused is the officer of the petitioner. Therefore, the officers of
the fourth respondent as well as the petitioner conspired together and
committed huge fraud. Now the entire matter has been seized up by the
trial Court. That apart, already the fourth respondent made claim before
the insurance company for the loss due to fraudulent transactions and it
is pending.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
13. The points for consideration in this writ petition are that
(i) whether the respondents 1 to 5 are liable to refund the fixed
deposit made by the petitioner?
(ii) Whether the writ of mandamus can be issued when disputed
question of facts involved?
14. Admittedly, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.100.57
crores as fixed deposit by five transactions. The petitioner was issued
with fixed deposit receipts. Though the petitioner called for quote from
various bank with regard to deposits under non-callable basis, there is no
specific category as non-callable deposit, even as per the guidelines
issued by the seventh respondent. Therefore, the deposits can be pre-
closed at any time at the request of the depositors. Accordingly, the
interest will be calculated and the accrued interest will be paid to the
depositors with principal amount. If it is loan transaction, while borrower
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
requested for pre-close, as per the conditions, he is liable to pay some
interest.
15. Whereas in the case on hand, the first transaction was done
on 07.03.2020 to the tune of Rs.1.99 crore by the petitioner. On
10.03.2020, one Ganesh Natarajan, who is arrayed as first accused
represented himself as Deputy Director of Finance of the petitioner,
along with one Manimozhi, who is arrayed as second accused,
approached the fourth respondent and submitted application to open a
current account in the name of the petitioner viz., Chennai Port Trust
General Insurance Fund. Subsequently, the second accused also made a
request to open a saving bank account in his own name. Immediately, on
12.03.2020, the first accused made a request to the fourth respondent to
pre-close the fixed deposit, which was made by the petitioner on
07.03.2020, and made a request to transfer and deposit the said amount
in the current account which was opened by the first accused in the name
of Chennai Port Trust General Insurance Fund.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. In the second transaction, the petitioner made a sum of
Rs.1.99 crore on 16.03.2020 and the petitioner was issued with fixed
deposit receipts. Thereafter on 21.03.2020, the petitioner made another
deposit to the tune of Rs.22.69 crores and they were issued with original
fixed deposit receipts. While being so, the first accused made request on
19.03.2020 to the fourth respondent to pre-close the fixed deposit and
the proceeds to be credited in the current account. Thereafter, another
deposit was made by the petitioner on 20.04.2020 to the tune of Rs.11.82
crores and the petitioner was issued with fixed deposit receipts.
Immediately, on 23.04.2020, the first accused made a request to pre-
close the fixed deposit and requested to credit the said amount into the
current account. Final deposit was made on 04.05.2020 to the tune of
Rs.62.08 crores and the petitioner was issued with fixed deposit receipt.
Thereafter, the first accused made request on 08.05.2020, to pre-close
the fixed deposit and requested to transfer and credit the said amount to
the current account. No prudent man would deposit and immediately
made request to pre-close the fixed deposit that too once after another.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17. As stated supra, immediately after the first transaction, there
was a request to pre-close the fixed deposit. Likewise, immediately after
the second transaction, there was request to pre-close. Therefore, every
two or three days after the deposits, there was a request to pre-close the
fixed deposit and also made request to credit the said amount into the
current account opened by the first accused. It is also seen from the
records, which were produced at the time of opening of the current
account by the first accused, he submitted application in his name as
Ganesh Natarajan, Deputy Director Finance of Chennai Port Trust. It
means that the current account was opened in the name of individual and
not in the name of the petitioner. That apart, the seal put up by the first
accused stand in the name of Port of Chennai instead of Chennai Port
Trust. Further the said account was permitted to operate by the first
accused alone.
18. Further the letters and resolution produced by the first
accused are stood in the name of Port of Chennai instead of Chennai Port
Trust. Seal and designation were also mentioned as Port of Chennai.
Therefore, it is fraud committed by the fourth respondent Manager with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
connivance of other accused persons. Though one of the official of the
petitioner is arrayed as accused viz., 26th accused, the allegations as
against 26th accused is that he informed the fourth respondent bank about
the quote received from other banks in respect of interest. No allegation
of opening of current account, request for pre-closing the fixed deposit
and request to credit the said amount into current account.
19. Even assuming that 26th accused is also in connivance with
other accused to commit fraud, it will not deny the respondents' liability
to refund the fixed deposit amount. Further opening of accounts involves
a series of verifications. The banker would always take enough
precautions to ensure that the accounts are not opened by persons with
dubious character. There are requirements to be followed by the banker
while dealing with opening of accounts of companies or body corporates
or corporation. Any person who deals with a corporation is required to
study the documents relating to their incorporation and their internal
affairs to ensure that the opening of account does not in any way run
contrary to the fundamental documents governing the corporation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20. The first accused had produced the documents in the name
of Port of Chennai that too filled application to open current account in
his personal name. Immediately after depositing huge amount as fixed
deposit, no person would ask for pre-close the fixed deposit and made
request to credit the said amount into current account that too opened in
his personal capacity. Likewise no prudent person would make another
fixed deposit, when the request was made to pre-close the earlier fixed
deposit. Therefore, it is clear fraud and the petitioner is no way liable for
forgo their fixed deposit amount and the respondents 1 to 4 cannot deny
their liability to refund the fixed deposit amount.
21. The fourth respondent bank participated in the open tender
called for by the petitioner for fixed deposit in the bank and succeed in
the bid. Thereafter, the first deposit was made and on the same day the
first accused requested for opening current account. Thereafter, the first
accused requested to pre-close the fixed deposit and made request to
credit the said amount in the his current account. He was also issued with
cheque book for further transaction and he was permitted to operate the
account.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22. In pursuant to the complaint lodged by the petitioner and
also by the fourth respondent, the sixth respondent registered a FIR in
Crime No.RC.032/2020/A/0006/CBI/ACB, Chennai, for the offences
punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and under
Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on
31.07.2020. Now the charge sheet has been filed and the same has been
taken in C.C.No.16 of 2022 on the file of the learned VIII Additional
Judge, Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai
and it is pending for trial.
23. Further, the criminal case is nothing to do with the refund of
fixed deposit amount, though the amount was transferred to the accused
accounts. The criminal case has been initiated only to punish the
accused. If there is any recovery, it can be realized only by the fourth
respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner made deposit and the fourth
respondent is liable to refund the said deposit amount. Whether any
fraud committed by the fourth respondent branch Manager or other staff,
the liability cannot be denied in pursuant to the criminal case. In fact, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Manager of the fourth respondent was dismissed from his service after
disciplinary proceedings. So far, the respondents 1 to 5 did not take any
steps to recover the said misappropriated amount by the Manager viz.,
the third accused. It shows that the respondents 1 to 5 simply ignored the
petitioner with regard to refund of fixed deposit amount. The
respondents 1 to 5 cannot say their denial on the ground that already CBI
had taken into the issue and the trial Court has taken cognizance. As
stated supra, the criminal case is nothing to do with the refund of fixed
deposit amount. If at all any recovery from the accused, the respondents
1 to 5 can realize the same after refunding the fixed deposit amount to
the petitioner. However, the respondents 1 to 5 are not liable to pay any
interest as agreed by them for the amount deposited by the petitioner,
since immediately after the deposit, the same was closed and the
amounts were credited into the current account opened by the first
accused.
24. Further the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 is not at all applicable to
the present case, since it was held in the different set of facts. There was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
a contract and accordingly the order was not done. Therefore, the amount
was denied since disputed question of facts were involved. In the case on
hand, admittedly the petitioner deposited the amount as fixed deposit
with the fourth respondent and the petitioner was issued with fixed
deposit receipts. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 5 are liable to refund the
amount which were collected from the petitioner as fixed deposit. Hence,
the direction can be issued as against the respondents 1 to 5 for refund of
fixed deposit amount.
25. During the investigation, the current account opened in the
name of Chennai Port Trust General Insurance Fund has been frozen
with the sum of Rs.55 crores. As directed by this Court, the said amount
has been returned to the petitioner. Insofar the remaining amount, it was
transferred to various accounts. Further from the said amount, the
accused persons had purchased immovable properties. During the search,
the investigation agency seized a sum of Rs.13.68 lakhs from the
accused premises and the same was deposited before the trial Court. In
the frozen accounts belong to various accused persons, a sum of Rs.1
crore is lying. From the proceeds of crime, the accused purchased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
immovable properties worth about Rs.9 crores and the same were also
attached by the investigation agency.
26. In view of the above discussions, this Court is inclined to
issue the following directions :-
(i) The respondents 1 to 5 are liable to refund the remaining
deposited amount after deducting the sum of Rs.55.19 crores and
accordingly, the respondents 1 to 5 are directed to pay the said remaining
amount to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Order.
(ii) The respondents 1 to 5 are entitled to realize the fixed deposit
amount from the proceeds of crime in C.C.No.16 of 2022 on the file of
the learned VIII Additional Judge, Principal Special Judge for CBI
Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai, after refunding the remaining fixed
deposit amount to the petitioner.
(iii) The petitioner is not entitled for any interest for the entire
fixed deposit amount deposited by the petitioner with the fourth
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(iv) The respondents 1 to 5 are at liberty to auction the immovable
properties, which were attached by the sixth respondent, with the
permission of the trial Court and also withdraw the proceeds of crime
from the trial Court.
27. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
03.06.2024
(2/2)
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
rts
To
1. The Managing Director & CEO,
Indian Bank, Corporate Office,
254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.
2. The Executive Director,
Indian Bank,
Corporate Office,
254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The Zonal Manager,
Indian Bank,
Zonal Office – Chennai North,
5th Floor, Indian Bank Head Office Building,
66, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001.
4. The Branch Manager,
Indian Bank, Koyambedu Branch,
Koyambedu, Chennai.
5. The General Manager/
Chief Operating Officer,
Indian Bank, Corporate Office,
254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.
6. Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
ACB Haddows Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
7. The Chief General Manager-in-Charge,
Department of Government and Bank Account,
Reserve Bank of India,
Central Office, 4th Floor,
Byculla Office Building,
Opp. Mumbai Central Station,
Byculla, Mumbai – 400 008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
rts
ORDER IN
03.06.2024
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
