C.M.A(MD)No.26 of 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 14.03.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

C.M.A(MD)No.26 of 2017

and

C.M.P(MD)No.264 of 2017

S.Perumal

... Appellant/3^rd Respondent

Vs.

1.Aavin General Manager / Madurai,

The Competent Authority (in charge),

Virudhunagar.

... Respondent/Applicant

Rich India Marketing Company,

Sivakasi, Represented through

Subburaj.

... Defaulted Financial Establishment

2. Subburaj

3.K.Madavi

... Respondents/Respondents 1&2

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 11 of

Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial

Establishments ) Act 1997, to allow this civil miscellaneous appeal by

setting aside the order passed in O.A.No.3 of 2015 on the file of the

Special Court under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors

(TNPID) Act, Madurai dated 19.12.2016.

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A(MD)No.26 of 2017

For Appellant

: Mr.T.Selvan

For R1

: Mr.N.G.A.Natraj

For R2

: No Appearance

JUDGEMENT

The present appeal has been filed challenging an order passed by

the Special Court under TNPID Act in O.A.No.3 of 2015.

2. The appellant herein is a 3^rd party to the criminal proceedings

under the TANPID Act and he claims that he is a bona fide purchaser of

a property from the wife of the 4^th accused in the said case.

3. The finance company was started in the name of Rich India

marketing company in August 2009. In January 2010, the property in

dispute has been purchased in the name of one Madavi, who is the wife

of the 4^th accused, namely Kannan. Thereafter, due to default in

repayment of the deposit amount, an F.I.R was registered on 27.10.2010.

On 30.03.2011, the said Madavi has sold the property in favour of the

present appellant. On 24.02.2014, a provisional order of attachment has

been passed by the Home Department attaching this property also.

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A(MD)No.26 of 2017

4. The complainant had approached the TANPID Court for

confirmation of the order of attachment as contemplated under Section 4

of the Act. In the said application, Madavi and the present appellant were

also made as parties. According to the appellant, without affording any

due opportunity to the appellant, the claim petition was dismissed relying

upon the averments in the affidavit filed by the complainant. Challenging

the same, the present appeal has been filed.

5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant,

the TANPID Court had reached an erroneous finding that Madavi is also

one of the accused persons and after registration of F.I.R, she has sold it

to the present appellant. He had further contended that Madhavi is no

way related to the financial transactions, except being the wife of the 4^th

accused. Hence, he prayed for allowing the appeal.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the

respondent has pointed out that the financial institution was commenced

in August 2009 and the property was purchased in January 2010 and

immediately after registration of F.I.R in October 2010, the property was

sold in March 2011 by the wife of the 4^th accused in favour of the

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A(MD)No.26 of 2017

appellant. Therefore, the modus operandi will clearly establish that there

was a malafide intention on the part of the said Madavi. He further

contended that the sale deed in favour of Madavi will disclose that she is

a house wife and therefore, the source of income was only from husband,

who is arrayed as 4^th accused.

7. Though both the counsels have placed their submissions on

merits, this Court is of the view that the present appellant has not been

given due opportunity to file his counter and place his submissions

before the Court. A perusal of Section 7 (3) of the TANPID Act points

out that a claim petition could be filed by a 3^rd party challenging the

or