Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. SRIMATHY, J.
V.S. Rethinakumari – Petitioner
Versus
S.R. Ratheesh and Ors. – Respondents
C.R.P(MD)Nos. 2518, 1846 of 2024 and C.M.A(MD)Nos. 1413, 1414, 1349 of 2024 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.10453, 14558, 14450 ,14459, 14463,14465, 14466, 14611, 14615, 14825 of 2024
Decided On : 03-02-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common facts of the case connect multiple legal proceedings concerning the appellant. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. describes the background of debts and legal obligations leading to the current disputes. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. the court's observations highlight significant procedural deficiencies in the execution process. (Para 11 , 15 , 16 , 20) |
| 4. the court reiterates the need for adherence to statutory obligations in executing debts. (Para 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 5. final conclusion encompasses the restoration of proper legal process and equitable settlement of claims. (Para 55 , 56) |
(S. SRIMATHY, J.)
The issue in C.R.P.(MD)No.2518 of 2024, C.R.P.(MD)No.1846 of 2024 and C.M.A.(MD)No.1349 of 2024, C.M.A.(MD)No.1413 of 2024 and C.M.A. (MD)No.1414 of 2024 are arising out of common facts. Hence all the cases are tagged together and common order is passed.
2.(i). Heard Mr.P.Prabhakaran, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.Natarajan, the Learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar, the Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, Mr.Parekh Kumar, the Learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, Mr.C.Satheesh, the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 4, 5, 6 and 7 in CRP(MD)No.2518 of 2024.
2.(ii) Heard Mr.P.Prabhakaran, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Mr.A.R.M.Ramesh, the Learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, Mr.Dilip Kumar, the Learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, Mr.C.Satheesh, the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1, 5, 6 and 7 in CMA(MD)No.1413 of 2024.
3.(i) The C.R.P.(MD)No.2518 of 2024 was filed by the defendant V.S.Rethinakumari (in O.S.No.106 of 2011) against the order, dated 12.12.2023 passed in E.A.No.41 of 2018 in E.P.No.4 of 2016 in O.S.No.106 of 2011. The said E.A.No.41 of 2018 was filed under Order 21 Rule 90 inter alia praying to set aside the court auction sale held on 01.03.2018.
3.(ii) The C.R.P.(MD)No.1846 of 2024 was filed by the defendant V.S.Rethinakumari (in O.S.No.106 of 2011) against the order dated 06.02.2024 passed in E.A.No.8 of 2023 passed in E.P.No.4 of 2016 in O.S.No.106 of 2011. The E.A.No.8 of 2023 was filed by the auction purchaser under Order 21 Rule 95 inter alia praying to delivery of possession of schedule of property through Court Amin.
3.(iii) The C.M.A.(MD)No.1349 of 2024 was filed by the defendant V.S.Rethinakumari (in O.S.No.106 of 2011) against the order, dated 08.07.2021 passed in E.A.No.40 of 2018 in E.P.No.4 of 2016 in O.S.No.106 of 2011. The said E.A.No.40 of 2018 was filed under Order 21 Rule 106 read with section 151 of CPC inter alia praying to set aside the exparte order dated 28.04.2016 passed in E.P.No.4 of 2016 in O.S.No.106 of 2011.
3.(iv) The C.M.A.(MD)No.1413 of 2024 was filed by the respondent V.S.Rethinakumari (in O.A.No.4 of 2015) against the order, dated 31.08.2021 passed in O.A.No.4 of 2015. The said O.A.No.4 of 2015 was filed by the Competent Authority under section 4 of TNPID Act inter alia praying to make absolute the attachment order in G.O.Ms.No.872 Home (Police XIX) Department dated 12.11.2012.
3.(v) The C.M.A.(MD)No. 1414 of 2024 was filed by the respondent V.S.Rethinakumari (in O.A.No.4 of 2015) against the order, dated 31.08.2021 passed in I.A.No.61 of 2016 in O.A.No.4 of 2015. The said I.A.No.61 of 2016 in O.A.No.4 of 2015 was filed by Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank inter alia praying to declare that the Bank has first charge over the properties schedule in G.O.Ms.No.872 dated 12.11.2012 subject to prior mortgage.
4. FACTS IN C.R.P.(MD)NO.2518 OF 2024, C.R.P.(MD)NO.1846 OF 2024 and C.M.A.(MD)NO.1349 OF 2024: The defendant/Judgment debtor V.S.Rethinakumari in the suit is the revision petitioner herein. The plaintiff/decree holder S.R.Ratheesh in the suit is the 1st respondent herein. The auction purchaser P.Robert Raj is the 2nd respondent herein. Subsequently, respondents 3 to 7, who are Income Tax Officer, District Regist
The judgment underscores the mandatory duty of execution courts to assess property sales proportionately to satisfy decrees, emphasizing jurisdictional limitations under the TNPID Act and ensuring co....
The execution court must assess whether the entire property needs to be sold to satisfy the decree, and violations of procedural rules can render sales void.
The court reaffirmed that sales of property in execution must comply with Order 21 of the CPC, ensuring no sale is beyond what is necessary to satisfy the decree. Failure to do so results in material....
A mortgage exists despite subsequent transfers by the mortgagor, and the creditor-debtor relationship in chitty transactions is affirmed, allowing the mortgagee to recover against subsequent assignee....
Properties purchased with depositor funds are subject to attachment under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, regardless of subsequent transfers.
Properties purchased with funds linked to a defaulting financial establishment can be attached under the Act, regardless of the source of those funds.
Unless there is material irregularity, which has resulted in causing substantial injury to judgment-debtor in conducting sale, question of interference by setting aside sale which was conducted by co....
The Designated Court under the OPID Act is not required to identify affected persons or quantify the money for equitable distribution, as per the provisions of the OPID Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
