[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
M/S.Sakthi Aishwarya Spinning Mills ... vs G.Srinivasan on 21 April, 2026
CRP No. 761 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON
18.03.2026 21.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
CRP No. 761 of 2019
and CMP.No.30975 of 2025
1. M/s.Sakthi Aishwarya Spinning Mills P.Ltd.,
Having its Registered Office at No.36,
Padmavathy Puram 6th Street , Avinashi Road,
Gandhi Nagar Post, Tiruppur – 641605
and having Mills at Pachaal Post, Puduchatram
via Namakkal District,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory
Sakthi Vignesh, 27, S/o.P.Karuppusamy (died),
No.36, Padmavathy Puram, 6th Street,
Avinashi Road, Ganghi Nagar Post,
Tiruppur – 641 605.
P.Karuppusamy (died)
2.Ruchmani, W/o.Karuppusamy
3. Easwari
4.Sakthi Vignesh
5.Aiswarya
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
G.Srinivasan
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 25.05.2017 passed in
EP.No.51/2016 in REP.No.75/2016 on the file of the Learned Principal District
Judge, Namakkal, to the extent that it subjects the petitioners’ enjoyment and
possession of its properties to the outcome of the order to be passed in
__________
Page1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 761 of 2019
CC.No.15/2011 before the Additional District Court - II, Special Court for CBI
Cases, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Thiyagarajan
For Respondent(s): No appearance
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the fair and
decretal order dated 25.05.2017 passed in EP.No.51/2016 in REP.No.75/2016
on the file of the Learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, to the extent that
it subjects the petitioners’ enjoyment and possession of its properties to the
outcome of the order to be passed in CC.No.15/2011 before the Additional
District Court - II, Special Court for CBI Cases, Coimbatore.
2. Heard Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit
that the Petitioner had entered into a memorandum of agreement, which was
also supplemented, with regard to the transfer of shares and management of the
Petitioner company together with its assets. As the Respondent failed to
perform his part of the obligations, the Petitioner, invoking the Arbitration
Clause in the said Agreement, had initiated arbitration proceedings. The sole
Arbitrator had passed an Award allowing the claim made by the Petitioner. He
__________
Page2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
would submit that the same became final as the Respondent appeals were
dismissed till the Hon’ble Apex Court. An Execution Petition to execute the
Award also came to be allowed, however, with an observation that the
petitioner can enjoy the possession of the property subject to the outcome of
the order passed in the calendar case pending in the Special Court for CBI
Cases.
4. He would submit that such an observation is an unnecessary
observation, as even if the property is confiscated under the PMLA Act
initiated against the Respondent, the Petitioner has a rightful claim for
retention of the property by releasing the same under the PMLA Act as being
the rightful title holder to the property. The issue of title with the company
may have sufferance in the conduct of its business, hence, he seeks indulgence
of this Court. The Petitioner had been benefited with an award.
5. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
6. The petitioner has been benefitted with an Award and the same had
been affirmed till the Hon'ble Apex Court, and thereafter he had taken out an
__________
Page3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
application to execute the Award. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent
was roped in as an offender under the PMLA Act, and proceedings were
pending till the disposal of the Execution Petition. Even assuming that under
Section 8 of the PMLA Act, the property could be confiscated to the Union
Government on the conclusion of trial, the very same Act also provides for
releasing the property from confiscation on a rightful claim made by a party.
7. In the present case, there is no dispute that the Petitioner had been
benefited with an award, where the agreement that he had entered into with the
Respondent was cancelled and the property was vested with the Petitioner. The
same had been confirmed up till the Apex Court. And therefore, even assuming
that the Respondent is convicted in the PMLA offence and the property is
confiscated, there would be a right to the Petitioner to get back the property
based upon the award that had been given in his favour.
8. In such an event, this Court is of the view that such a finding given by
the Executing Court restricting the Petitioner's right to enjoy, subject to the
outcome of the criminal proceedings, was wholly unnecessary and
unwarranted.
__________
Page4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petitions stand allowed, and the
observations made by the Executing Court with regard to enjoyment of the
property to be subject to the proceedings in the calendar case pending before
the Special Courts, alone stand set aside. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is also closed. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
21.04.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
GBA
To
1. Principal District Judge, Namakkal
2. Additional District Court – II,
Special Court for CBI Cases,
Coimbatore.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
__________
Page5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
GBA
21.04.2026
__________
Page6 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
