JUDGMENT :

The appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the decreetal order passed in O.A.No.57 of 2008 on the file of the learned Special Judge under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act 1997, (for short TNPID Act) Chennai, dated 12.09.2014.

2. The question of law that arises for consideration is as to

“whether the TNPID Court erred in holding that the schedule mentioned properties was purchased by the 5th respondent before the creation of the financial institution, besides not a shareholder of the J.B. Associates and erroneously ordered for attachment of the property?”

3. The facts reveal that the 1st respondent / investigating agency filed O.A.No.57 of 2008 under Section 8 of TNPID Act read with Section 151 CPC, praying to pass an order of attachment of the properties of the appellant as stated in the schedule. The finance company was under the name and style of Hi-yield Investments, registered on 1995, with the partners, respondents 2 to 5 along with the appellant at Kastamedu Street, Kospaet, Vellore Town and the same was dissolved on 28.05.2003 with an intention to cheat the depositors. After collecting money they have started another financial institution in the name and style of J.B.Associates in the year 2005, in which, the respondents 2 to 4 herein were partners and they have canvassed the depositors to deposit huge amount, by promising to pay the interest at the rate of 12% and by handing over the promissory notes to the depositors. Subsequently, they neither paid the interest nor paid the deposited amount. Therefore, complaints have been received from the depositors and FIR was also registered against them in Crime No.1 of 2008 by the Economic Offence Wing under Section 5 of TNPID Act and Section 420 of IPC. The respondents 2 to 4 are the sons of Jayagopalreddy and the appellant /wife/ J. Vijayalakshmi. In fact, all of them are joint family members who started financial institution in the name of Hi-Yield Financiers after collecting huge deposit from the depositors, and thereafter closed that firm and the sons alone again started a new financial institution with a dis-honest intention to cheat the depositors. In fact, Jayagopalreddy who is the father of the respondents 2 to 4 herein being head of the joint family is owning the properties as listed in the Schedule mentioned properties in the name of his wife Vijayalakshmi /appellant herein on 12.05.2007 through a sale deed.

4. In order to, defraud the depositors, the defaulted firm respondent made fanciful promise. Received complaint from the depositors, the application has been filed, praying suitable order of attachment of the properties as stated in the schedule. This petition was contested by the respondents 1 to 5. Subsequently, the 6th respondent was included by way of amendment.

5. On hearing both sides, the TNPID Court allowed the said application by passing order of attachment. Aggrieved by the same the appellant / 5th respondent has preferred this appeal.

6. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not a partner of the defaulted firm J.B.Associates, nor she purchased properties out of the deposited money collected in that firm. The learned trial judge, without appreciating this fact, erroneously ordered attachment. Further, he also submitted that the 1st respondent is not a right person to file the application under Section 8 of the Act, and only the competent Authority is entitled to file the said application. So the petition, as such, is not maintainable in law.

7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the appellant herein is the mother of the partners of the J.B.Associates and prior to that, a finance company in the name and style of Hi-Yield investments was registered in the year 1995, in which the appellant and her husband Jayagopalreddy and three sons / respondents 2 to 4 were the partners and