MARKANDEY KATJU, FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
S. Parthasarathy & Others – Appellant
Versus
N. Arumugam & Others – Respondent
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
With the consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.
2. Petitioner in the writ petition is really aggrieved against an order passed by the competent authority under Sec.3 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1997 (Act 44 of 1997). Under Section 3, after passing an interim order of attachment, the competent authority constituted under Sec.4 of the Act has to move the appropriate forum, viz. the Special Court constituted under Sec.6 of the said Act. Thereafter, the Special Court will be seized of the matter, who will be dealing with all other subsequent proceedings relating to the manner in which the attachment order passed under Sec.3 of the Act is to be dealt with i.e. either to modify or vary the said order of attachment or even to revoke the same after analysing the facts and circumstances involved in the case. Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the said Act empowers the Special Court to pass such appropriate orders depending upon the facts and circumstances involved. Further under Section 11 of the said Act, any person aggrieved by the order of the Special Court ca
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.