IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-07-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI C . M . A . No. 1332 of 2023 and C . M . P . N o . 13301 o f 2023 T.M.T. Saroja ...Appellant(s)

Vs

1. The Competent Authority And District Revenue Officer Collectorate, Tiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District.

2.Sri. Dhanalakshmi Financiers, No. 249/A, Market Road, Arni Town, Thiruvannamalai District.

3.K.V. Dhasaradan

4.Govindasmay 5.G. Saravanan 6.G. Sulochana

7.S. Santhiyarani

8.V. Jayasree 9.K. Sampath 10.Krishnabai

11.R. Saroja

12.S. Rajeshwari 13.S. Venkatesan

14.S. Lakshmi

15.K.V. Radhakrishnan

16.M. Nagarajan

17.T. Venu

18.U. Navarathan Jain ...Respondents PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interrest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1997, to set aside the order dated 29.10.2020 passed in OA.No. 4/2013 on the file of the learned Special Judge under Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments), Chennai - 104.

For Appellant(s): Mr.E.Kannadasan For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Sathish, Government Advocate for R1

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order passed by the Court below in O.A.No.4 of 2013, the 4th respondent Saroja preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the lower court erred in allowing the O.A.No.4/2013 filed by the 1st respondent under Section 4(3) and 4(4) of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Finance Establishments) Act 1997 and made absolute the interim attachment of the appellant's properties namely, Item Nos.10, 11, 12 passed in G.O.Ms.No.585, dated 27.07.2009 without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The lower Court ought to have dismissed the petition filed by the 1st respondent by holding that the property in Survey No.381/7 to the extent of 0.34 cents Item No.11(ii) vide G.O.Ms.No.585, dated 27.07.2009 which is not the property of the appellant. Hence, the interim attachment itself is without proper application of mind. He would contend that the Lower Court failed to see that the appellant is a house wife and she is not involved in the day- to-day affairs of the financial establishment. Further, the lower Court failed to see that there is absolutely no material to show that the appellant was involved in the day-to-day affairs of the financial establishment. The appellant is only a sleeping partner of the financial establishment.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the Lower Court erred in allowing the O.A.No.4 of 2013 and made absolute the order of interim attachment merely because the attached properties were purchased after the formation of the financial establishment. The lower Court erred in making absolute the interim attachment without even satisfying itself that the properties were purchased from the depositor's amount. He would further contend that the Lower Court ought to have seen that one of the properties, namely, Item No.10 of the G.O.Ms.585, dated 27.07.2009, attached by the 1" respondent was settled by the appellant's husband in her favour, which is not liable for attachment and the Lower Court ought to have dismissed the O.A.No.4 of 2013 in respect of the abovesaid Item No.10 of the said G.O. The Lower Court failed to see that the appellant has established her independent source of income for purchasing the other properties, namely, Item Nos.11 and 12 in G.O.Ms.No.585 dated 27.07.2009. By submitting the above grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that the Court below without any material evidence attached the property of the appellant is, as such, illegal and liable to be set aside.

4.By way of reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent would contend that the accused Financial Establishment had collected deposits from the general public on various dates and defaulted in return of the deposited money after maturity to the