The court determined that the investigation and property identification must be unbiased and comprehensive to ensure fairness in attachment under the TNPID Act.

COMMON JUDGMENT

These three appeals are filed by a partner and his wife of a finance institution, challenging the order passed by the Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Court, Coimbatore making the order of the Government attaching their properties.

2. The facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeals would be stated as follows:

The first appellant, in all the three appeals, was running a finance company in the name and style of M/s.Kongu Finance and Investments along with other partners. The partners have collected deposits from a total of 185 depositors. It is stated that they have deposited a sum of Rs.11,99,65,140/-. The partners have promised the depositors stars and moon. It is stated that the depositors were assured that for every Rs.100/-, they would get Rs.1.50/- as interest every month. However, the partners miserably failed in their promise and the depositors were neither paid interest nor paid principal and they were left in a lurch. Since the demands and cries of the depositors fell in deaf ears, the depositors have approached the police for return of the deposit money and a case came to be registered in Cr. No.31/2014 before the EWO-II under Section 120(b) read with 420, 406 IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act 1997 and the same is still pending and witnesses are being examined. In the meanwhile, the Investigating Officer has identified the properties belonging to the appellant and his wife and recommended the same to the Government for attachment. Based on the said recommendation, the Government has passed an order issuing the interim order attaching the immovable properties owned by the appellant and his wife.

3. The competent authority and the District Revenue Officer, Erode District have filed original applications 3,4, and 5 of 2020 on the file of the Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore seeking to make the interim order absolute and permit the authority to sell the properties under Section 7(6) of the TNPID Act and settle the demands to the depositors. The said original applications were allowed and the interim order of attachment was made absolute.

4. Challenging the genuineness and correctness of the said order, the present appeals have been filed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

6. The short point to be considered is whether the Investigating Officer was justified in identifying the properties of the appellant and his wife alone without making any recommendation with regard to the properties owned by the other partners viz., Sivasamy and his wife Sundari as they have purchased the properties worth about more than Rs.20 crores which is out of the amounts invested by the depositors. Further, they have plotted out the same and sold it to several persons, in which, the wife of the 3rd respondent also purchased 4 to 5 properties in the said layout and sold then subsequently. The amount realised by the said sale would be sufficient to satisfy the claims of the depositors. It is the stand of the appellants that merely because those properties have not been attached, it cannot be said that the said properties of Sivasamy and Sundari cannot be attached. The properties of the partners of the second respondent, are also be attached and brought for sale in public auction by the Competent Authority as per the Act. The competent authority has pleaded that it is the Investigating Officer who identifies such of the properties that could be attached and sold so as to realise money and settle the dues to the depositors.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants is perfectly justified and contending that the investigating officer has