The court established that security values must be based on market assessments to protect depositor interests, emphasizing the use of public auctions for property sales under the TNPID Act.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by one R.J.Ilango, who is not a party in the original application in O.A.No.7 of 2022 on the file of Special Court under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act 1997, Madurai (in short referred as TNPID Court), but subsequently impleaded himself in the said O.A. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the said third party.

2. The two accused namely Blessing Agro Farm India Ltd., and its Managing Director I.L.Joseph Jeyaraj are the petitioners in the said O.A.No.7 of

2022 inter alia praying to release the property stated in the petition and in lieu of the same and had stated that he is ready and willing to deposit the security amount. Accepting the contention of the accused, the TNPID Court has fixed the value of the property as Rs.1,80,60,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Lakh and Sixty Thousand only) as security. One Vijayaraman, who is the 5th respondent herein had deposited the said amount and sale deed is executed in his name. Aggrieved over the said order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the 3rd party, R.J.Illango.

3. The brief facts of the case as stated in the affidavit filed by the appellant is that the 1st respondent Company approached the appellant in the year 2011 for constructing of Corporate Office at S.S.Colony, Madurai and the appellant had completed the construction in the same year. Thereafter the appellant had renovated a building by name "Uma Catering" in Kanmaikarai Road at Arapalayam. In the year 2012, the appellant had constructed 1st floor of a house belonging to 1st Respondent in property situated at D.No.16, Loordhu Nagar Main Road, Pudur, Madurai. In 2013, the appellant entered into agreement to construct buildings in a property situated at Ramarajapuram, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District at a cost of Rs.1,55,47,075/-. In the year 2014 an agreement was entered to construct a building in the same property at Ramarajapuram Village at a cost of Rs.93,89,572/-. In the same year the appellant constructed a building at Dairy Division, Ramarajapuram at cost Rs.81,05,810/-. Thereafter constructed ‘workers quarters’ in Dairy Division for a sum of Rs.49,43,400/-. In the year 2015, another construction in the said property at Rs.29,92,180/-. For the above said agreements the total cost of construction was Rs.4,09,78,037/-. The 1st respondent had issued completion certificate. The 1st respondent had paid a total sum of Rs.3,04,36,354/- through bank transaction on various dates from 16.08.2013 to 16.09.2015 and the balance payable is Rs.1,05,41,683/-. The appellant further stated that in order to carry out the said works the appellant had mortgaged the appellant’s house with Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank and obtained a loan. As the payment was delayed the 1st respondent promised to pay the cost of construction with interest, but later came forward to transfer the property in lieu of the consideration of the monies payable for the aforesaid constructions. On 26.11.2018 the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent transferred the property situated in D.16, Loordhu Nagar Main Road, K.Pudur, Madurai -16 for a sum of Rs.45 Lakhs and that the 1st respondent promised to clear the balance amount at the earliest. After the said sale the appellant had let out the building for lease. The appellant further submitted that the appellant had suffered loss due to non-payment by the 1st respondent and could not recover the money payable for the execution of the aforesaid contracts. All the transaction was transparent and that there is no question of any collusion and malafide, since the said house was transferred only for the consideration for the money due from the 1st respondent to the appellant. Further the appellant is not aware of the financial transaction of the 5th respondent but aware of the fact that the 5th respondent is having an Agro Farm Company. Hence the appellant was shocked to receive summons from the Special Cour