Madras High Court
Manappuram Finance Limited vs The State Represented By on 26 March, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A.(MD)No.1221 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A(MD)No.1221 of 2019
and
C.M.P(MD)No.11336 of 2019
Manappuram Finance Limited,
Represented by its Area Head (Madurai Region),
Manappuram House,
Valapad P.O,
Thrissur District,
Kerala – 680 567. ... Appellant /
Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Secretary Department of
Home Affairs,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents /
Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 05:10:17 pm )
W.A.(MD)No.1221 of 2019
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to call for
the entire records in W.P(MD)No.12654 of 2018 dated 20.06.2019 on the
file of this Court, set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh
For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani
Special Government Pleader
for R.1
Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R.2 & R.3
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)
Heard both sides.
2.The appellant filed W.P(MD)No.12654 of 2018 for forbearing
the respondents from interfering with their right to dispose of the pledged
jewellery through public auction. The writ petition was disposed of on
29.10.2018 by directing constitution of a committee for placing all the
disputed cases before the said committee for resolution. The order dated
29.10.2018 reads as follows:
“10.In the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court deems it fit, to direct reconstitution of the
Committee consisting of (1) Chairman of the District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 05:10:17 pm )
Legal Services Authority, Ramanathapuram, as Chairman
(2) An Officer not below the rank of Tahsildar, nominated
by the District Collector, Ramanthapuram as Member (3)
A Police Officer not below the rank of Inspect of Police,
nominated by the Superintendent of Police,
Ramanthapuram as Member and (4) The representatives
from the petitioner's bank, where the jewels are re-
pledged.
11.The Committee shall be constituted within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this order. The Committee shall follow the guidelines
issued by this Court in WP(MD)No.7380 of 2013, dated
24.07.2013.
12.The Committee shall complete the entire process
within a period of three months from the date of its
constitution.
13.After the entire exercise is completed by the
Committee, all the other jewels that are left
out /unclaimed, shall thereafter be brought for public
auction by the petitioner company in accordance with
law.”
Subsequently, the tenure of the committee was extended by 3 more
months on 20.06.2019. Challenging the said extension, this Writ Appeal
came to be filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 05:10:17 pm )
3.Admittedly, there has been no further extension of time. The
learned Additional Public Prosecutor also states that the committee is no
longer functioning. Our attention is also drawn to the order dated
03.02.2021 made in L.P.A(MD)No.2 of 2016 by the Hon'ble Division
Bench. Paragraph 9, 10 and 11 of the said order read as follows:
“9. There are composting interest involved. The
entire situation has been brought forth by the failure of
the writ petitioner in making the payment to the letters
patent appellant. We could see the manner in which the
entire transaction took place. For a lesser amount, the
owners were made to pledge their jewels and accordingly,
it was paid by the writ petitioner. In turn, he pleaded it for
higher amount with the letters patent appellant. We are
not willing to go into the question as to whether there was
a collusion between the writ petitioner and the letters
patent appellant or he acted as the agent. Unfortunately,
there is no privity of contract between the original
borrowers and the letters patent appellant.
10. In such view of the matter, we are not inclined
to pass any further positive order in this matter. We only
permit the parties to work out their remedies in the
manner known to law, while the investigation is directed
to go on, in pursuant to the case registered in Crime No.
328 of 2014, on the file of the Usilampatti Town Police
Station, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 05:10:17 pm )
11. We are not in a position to resolve the dispute
by utilizing the services of the Committee any longer, as
neither the writ petitioner is in a position to make
payment nor we can direct the letters patent appellant to
release the jewels without getting back his money, which,
law entitles him to retain until receipt of the due.”
We are inclined to adopt the very same approach in this case also. The
appellant also cannot ask for an omni bus prayer. These are matters that
have to be resolved elsewhere. The writ Court cannot be tasked with the
responsibility to adjudicate such issues. The writ petition has already
been disposed of and this Writ Appeal is only against an extension order.
4.This Writ Appeal is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[G.R.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.]
26.03.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
MGA
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 05:10:17 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
MGA
To
1.The Secretary Department of
Home Affairs,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Ramanathapuram District.
26.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 05:10:17 pm )
