SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J
Ratina Retails Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Superintendent of Police – Respondent
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. (Not provided)



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nanchill J.Rajkumar
For the Respondents: R.Ganesh kumar

A purchaser of assets through a valid auction is entitled to seek police protection if obstructed by third parties, necessitating that police authorities hold an enquiry and pass appropriate orders on the request for protection.

Headnote:The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing police authorities to provide protection for the dismantling and removal of auctioned machinery from a factory site. The petitioner alleged obstruction by local individuals following the auction purchase. The Court determined that as the petitioner acquired the assets through a valid auction, third-party obstruction is not legally permissible. The core issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to police protection to secure property rights post-auction. The Court reasoned that police authorities have an obligation to address representations regarding the peaceful exercise of property rights after ensuring procedural fairness, balancing law and order with private civil rights. The Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to conduct an enquiry and pass orders within two weeks.

Table of Content
1. petitioner requests police protection for property removal following auction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. lawfulness of auction purchase precludes third-party obstruction; police mandate for enquiry. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)

ORDER

This Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner while dismantling and transporting the machineries and movables out of the factory premises of M/s.Saraswathy Udyog India Limited, situated at Thidumal Road, Paramathivelur Taluk, Kabilar Malai, Namakkal District, based on the petitioner’s representation dated 25.03.2026.

2. The petitioner had purchased the machineries planted to earth and movables in the factory premises of M/s.Saraswathy Udyog India Limited, situated at Thidumal Road, Paramathivelur Taluk, Kabilar Malai, Namakkal District, through an auction purchase for valid consideration. After the purchase, when the petitioner proceeded to dismantle and remove the machineries from the Company premises, certain local elements obstructed the petitioner from removing the machineries and demanded a commission. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation before the third respondent seeking adequate police protection to him and his workers, while dismantling and transporting the machineries from the company premises.

3. The persons who allegedly obstructed the process, representing the Company, submits that they were not impleaded as parties to this petition. Even according to the petitioner, who made allegations against them, these individuals are not the owners of the company and they had no right or title over the property.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner had purchased the machineries planted to earth and movables in the factory premises of M/s.Saraswathy Udyog India Limited, situated at Thidumal Road, Paramathivelur Taluk, Kabilar Malai, Namakkal District, through an auction purchase. Therefore, no third party cannot object or obstruct the petitioner while dismantling and transporting the machineries.

6. In view of the above, the third respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry on the request made by the petitioner seeking police protection, after issuance of notice to the counter parties, if any, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition (Criminal) stands disposed of. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top