IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-07-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI and C.M.P.N o . 5095 o f 2023 P.Madesvaran ...Appellant/19th Respondent Vs

1. The Competent Authority, District Revenue Office, ...1st Respondent/Applicant Namakkal.

2.Jenith Herbals, Proprietorship, represented by its Proprietor Mr.B.Jegasesan, No.132-A, Amman Kovil Street Road, Melkalingampatty, Semmedu Post, Kolli Post, Kolli Hills, Namakkal District.

3.B.Jegadesan

4.P.Kandasamy

5.T.Manikandan

6.C.Kumar

7.P.Palanisamy 8.P.Subramani 9.C.Rajendran

10.G.Thukkagounder

11.P.Kumar

12.G.Kandasamy

13.V.Elumalai

14.C.Sundaram

15.T.Nagarathinam

16.P.Prakash 17.R.Sivaraj

18.P.Duraisamy

19.P.Kirubaidos ...Respondents 2 to 10/

Respondents 1 to 18 20.T.Muralikrishnan S/o.Thiyagarajan, Sub-Registrar, Rasipuram, (now working as Sub Registrar, Paramathi, Paramathi Velur Taluk, Namakkal District-637 207.

...20th Respondent/20th Respondent PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 11 of the TNPID Act against the Order dated 07.03.2022 passed in O.A. No.19 of 2015 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore.

For Appellant(s): Mr.S.Senthil For Respondent(s): Mr. C. Sathish, Government Advocate for R1 Mr.Rajesh Ramanathan for R4 to R16 R2 and R3 – Not residing at present R9 and R18-No appearance R17- Addressee can not be located R20-No Such Person

JUDGMENT

Challenging the Order dated 07.03.2022 passed in OA No.19 of 2015 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore, the 19th respondent preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Court below committed an error in making the interim attachment absolute in respect of the property purchased by the appellant, without considering the bona fide nature of the purchase. The Court below proceeded merely on the premise that the vendor was an accused under the TNPID Act, without examining the conduct of the appellant or the circumstances of the purchase. He would submit that the Court below failed to appreciate the diligence exercised by the appellant, who had obtained an Encumbrance Certificate from the Sub-Registrar, Rasipuram, for the period from 01.01.2003 to 07.07.2014 prior to purchasing the property. The said Encumbrance Certificate did not reflect any entry regarding the ad-interim attachment passed under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (TNPID) Act, 1997, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.497, Home Department, dated 12.07.2013. Only after ensuring that there was no encumbrance recorded, the appellant purchased the property from the 2nd accused for a valuable consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-. Further, the Court below failed to consider that the 1st respondent did not produce any evidence to establish that the appellant had prior knowledge of the ad-interim attachment passed under Section 3 of the Act. The first communication from the Sub-Registrar, Rasipuram, was the notice dated

15.10.2014 issued in Na.Ka.No.240/2014, which clearly post-dates the appellant’s purchase. The Court below further erred in making the attachment order absolute, despite the fact that an interim order had already been granted by this Court on 10.07.2015 in W.M.P.No.2 of 2015 in W.P.No.20568 of 2015, which Writ Petition is still pending consideration. He woud further submit that the Court below ought not to have based its decision solely on the testimony of the D.R.O., Durga Moorthy (P.W.1), without affording the appellant adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witness, adduce evidence, and make submissions demonstrating that he is a bona fide purchaser for value in good faith and without notice.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the Court below has not rendered any reasoned finding as to how it concluded that the interim attachment should be made absolute, despite the absence of any evidence to show that the appellant was not a bona fide