SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 1833

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. PUGALENDHI, J.
G. Ramdoss – Appellant
Versus
Competent Authority / District Revenue Officer, Madurai & Others – Respondents
CRP(MD)No. 169 of 2022 & CMP(MD)Nos. 734, 4587 of 2022
Decided On : 08-06-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sricharan Rangarajan, Senior Counsel Assisted by S. Ram Sundar, Vijayaraj, Advocates. For the Respondents:R1, R. Baskaran, Additional Advocate General Assisted by G.V. Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader, R2 to R5, No appearance.

The judgment emphasizes the need for a liberal interpretation of time limits and 'sufficient cause' in delay condonation applications, especially in cases involving the protection of depositors' interests.

Headnote:

TNPID Act - Delay Condonation - Section 4(3) - Section 5 of Limitation Act - [Financial Establishment, TNPID Act, Section 4(3), Section 5 of Limitation Act]

Fact of the Case:

The case involves a delay condonation application filed by the Competent Authority under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1537 days in filing an application under Section 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1997. The delay was attributed to various reasons including election duties and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Finding of the Court:

The Special Court dismissed the civil revision petition, upholding the delay condonation by the Competent Authority. The Court emphasized the need to protect the interests of depositors and highlighted the inefficiencies in the disposal of attached properties under the TNPID Act.

Issues: The main issue was the delay in filing the application under Section 4(3) of the TNPID Act and the Competent Authority's justification for the delay.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the time limit under Section 4(3) of the TNPID Act is directory, not mandatory, considering the purpose of the legislation and the potential injustice to depositors. It also emphasized the need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to advance substantial justice.

Final Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed, and the Competent Authority was urged to address the inefficiencies in the disposal of attached properties under the TNPID Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the order passed by the learned Judge, Special Court under Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (F & E) Act, 1997, Madurai, in I.A.No.62 of 2021 in unnumbered O.A.No. - of 2021, dated 20.12.2021 and set aside the same.)

1. This revision petition is arising out of an order passed by the Special Court under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1997, Madurai in I.A.No.62 of 2021 dated 20.12.2021. This interlocutory application was filed by the first respondent herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1537 days in filing an application under Section 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “TNPID Act”). The trial Court, by order dated 20.12.2021, condoned the delay and allowed the interlocutory application. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the revision petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 herein started the second respondent Company, namely, Global Capital Trading Services which is a financial establishment as defined under Section 2(3) of the TNPID Act. On 02.11.2010, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Madurai, registered an FIR in Crime No.6 of 2010 against them for the offences under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the TNPID Act, based on a complaint given by one Nattarayan that the money taken from him as deposits were not returned by the Company. After the completion of the investigation, a final report was also filed in CC.No.11 of 2013 before the Special Court in which this petitioner was arrayed as the accused no. 5.

3. If any Financial Establishment defrauds its depositors and if the Government is satisfied that this establishment is not likely to return the deposits, the Government may in order to protect the interest of the depositors, pass an adinterim order attaching the money or other property alleged to have been procured either in the name of the Financial Establishment or in the name of any other person from and out of the deposits collected by the Financial Establishment, or if it transpires that such money or other property is not available for attachment or not sufficient for repayment of the deposits, such other property of the said Financial Establishment or the Promoter, Partner, Director, Manager or member of the said Financial Establishment or a person who has borrowed money from the Financial Establishment to the extent of his default or, such other properties of that person in whose name properties were purchased from and out of the deposits collected by the Financial Establishment, as the Government may think fit, and transfer the control over the said money or property to the Competent Authority. The ad-interim order of attachment passed by the Government has to be made absolute by the Special Court constituted under the TNPID Act on an application filed by the Competent Authority within a period of thirty days as per Section 4(3) of the TNPID Act. The District Revenue Officers (hereinafter referred to as “DRO”) of respective Districts are appointed as Competent Authority under the TNPID Act vide G.O.Ms.No.1049, Home Department, dated 26.08.2004.

4. In the case on hand, the Government, on being satisfied that the accused Company is not likely to return the deposits to the depositors, invoked Section 3 of the TNPID Act and passed G.O.Ms.No.989, Home (Police XIX) Department, dated 24.12.2012, ordering interim attachment of the properties of the accused nos.2 and 3 in CC.No.11 of 2013. The control over those properties were also transferred to the District Revenue Officer, Madurai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top