Madras High Court
S.Vanitha vs Thirumathi Senthamil Selvi on 2 September, 2022
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
Cont.P.No.1292 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 24.08.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 02.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
Cont.P.No.1292 of 2022
S.Vanitha ... Petitioner
vs.
1.Thirumathi Senthamil Selvi,
Managing Director/Additional Registrar
Erode District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Head Office : Park Road,
Thirunagar Colony, Erode 638 001.
2.B.Gopal,
Branch Manager,
Erode District Central Co-operative Bank Limited,
P.E.1, Sampath Nagar Branch,
No.238, Chinnamuthu Main Street,
Edayakattuvalasu,
Erode 638 011. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, to
punish the respondents for committing wilful violation of the order passed
by this Court in W.P.No.4507 of 2021 dated 01.03.2021.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 1 of 14
Cont.P.No.1292 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Baskaradoss
For Respondents : Mrs.C.Meera Arumugam
Addl.Govt.Pleader.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this contempt petition for violation of this Court order dated 01.03.2021 in W.P.No.4507 of 2021. The said writ petition was filed for the following relief:
“ The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to return the gold jewels of the petitioner in seven loan accounts on payment of the jewel loan due on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 29.05.2020 and 16.12.2020.”
2. The said writ petition was disposed by an order dated 01.03.2021 with the following observations:
“ 3. If there are any allegations as against the petitioner, they can proceed with the allegations and conclude with an enquiry and without an enquiry, jewels of the petitioner cannot be retained. Hence, this Court is of the considered view to direct the ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 2 of 14 Cont.P.No.1292 of 2022 third respondent to proceed with the enquiry, will serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the third respondent is directed to proceed with the enquiry and conclude the same, within a stipulated time, preferably, not less than six months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
3. The facts on record indicate that the petitioner's husband Mr.G.Charles Sugumar had pledged her jewels and ornaments weighing 362.80 grams with the second respondent Erode District Central Cooperative Bank Limited during the year 2019 for a loan.
4. It appears that the petitioner's husband late Mr.G.Charles Sugumar was working as a Secretary of the CE-11, Erode District Judicial Staff Thrift and Cooperative Society Limited. Later, the petitioner's husband late Mr.G.Charles Sugumar died on 20.06.2021 due to Covid- 19 Viral Pneumonia with Cardio-Pulmonary symptoms after the aforesaid order dated 01.03.2021 came to be passed by this Court in W.P.No.4507 of 2021.
5. A notice dated 30.11.2021 was addressed in the name of the petitioner's husband Late. Mr.G.Charles Sugumar which called upon him to clear the outstanding. The petitioner therefore sent a legal notice ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 3 of 14 Cont.P.No.1292 of 2022 dated 07.12.2021 and stated that the petitioner's husband died on 20.06.2021 due to Covid-19 Viral Pneumonia with Cardio-Pulmonary symptoms and that the petitioner came to know about the proposed auction through publication/ advertisement in Malai Murasu on 26.11.2021 to auction the petitioner's jewels and ornaments along with the jewels and ornaments of other defaulters in various branches of the second respondent bank for the proposed auction on 07.12.2021 without notice to the petitioner.
6. Under these circumstances, the petitioner called upon the second respondent bank to not to bring the petitioner's jewels and ornaments to auction.
7. The specific case of the petitioner is that earlier the petitioner had approached the second respondent bank to allow redemption of the jewels and ornaments pledged by her Mr.G.Charles Sugumar and offering to repay the loan outstanding. However, there was no proper response from the officials. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the second respondent bank and sent a representation dated 29.05.2020 and ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 4 of 14 Cont.P.No.1292 of 2022 thereafter by a reminder dated 16.12.2020 and stated that the jewels were required for the petitioner's daughter's marriage.
8. However, the second respondent bank had refused to accept the amount from the petitioner stating that a surcharge proceedings under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies, 1983 had been initiated against the petitioner's husband. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4507 of 2021.
9. It was therefore submitted that the auction was without proper notice to the petitioner and by a notice to the dead person without giving opportunity to the petitioner who is legal heir. The respondents were therefore called upon to not auction the pledged jewels.
10. Thereafter, the petitioner has sent several representations which culminated in issue legal notice by the petitioner's counsel stating that the petitioner will be constrained to initiate appropriate contempt proceedings.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 5 of 14 Cont.P.No.1292 of 2022
11. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that proceedings under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 was initiated against the petitioner's husband Late. Mr.G.Charles by the Deputy Registrar, Erode Circle on 25.09.2019 in his proceedings bearing reference Na.Ka.3950/2019/No.Ku for various acts of mis-appropriation committed during the period between 01.04.2016 and 25.09.2019 and by another proceeding dated 17.02.2021 bearing reference Na.Ka.1360/2020, it was ordered to probed against the petitioner's husband late Mr.G.Charles Sugumar .
12. It is submitted that a detailed inquiry was ordered and a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 24.08.2021 holding that the petitioner's husband late Mr.G.Charles Sugumar was liable to a sum of Rs.4,25,64,775 (Rupees Four Crore Twenty Five Lakh Sixty Fourt Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Five Only) and same was to be recovered.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 6 of 14 Cont.P.No.1292 of 2022
13. It is submitted that later an order came to be passed under Section 87 vide proceedings dated 19.11.2021 and 29.11.2021 bearing reference Na.Ka.5325/2021/sa.pa. under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983.
14. It is submitted that the petitioner's husband late Mr.G.Charles Sugumar had also stood as a Guarantor for a Loan availed for a sum of Rs.6.50 lakhs availed by one M.VeeraKumar, Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Textile and Processing Mill Employees Cooperative Society with the second respondent bank that the aforesaid amount was also not paid and that the amount was due as per the proceedings of the Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Erode Circle, Erode in Thava No. 01/2021-2022 Na.Ka.No.1368/2021/Ni. Ma dated 25.06.2021.
15. It is further submitted that the petitioner neither submitted death certificate nor legal heir certificate of the petitioner's husband to the respondent bank for the jewels and ornaments pledged by her husband. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 7 of 14 Cont.P.No.1292 of 2022
16. It is submitted that due to the misappropriation made by the petitioner's husband Late.Thiru G.Charles Sukumar along with few others, the entire loan outstanding of the C.E.11 Erode District Judicial Department Employees Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society works out to Rs.10.99 Crore as on 31.03.2021 and that the said society has been classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and 100% provision has been made as per the prudential norms on Income Recognition and Asset Classification as stipulated by the Reserve Bank of India, thereby reducing the performance and profitability of the Bank to a larger extent. Hence, in order to protect the interest of the depositors of the Bank and Share holders' funds, the said Jewels have been auctioned to recover the amount due to the Bank.
17. It is further submitted that even before an order was passed in the above writ petition, an Enquiry under Section 81 was already in progress and earlier an order in Na.Ka.No.3950 of 2019 Nu.Ku. dated 25.09.2019 and in Na.Ka.No.1360 of 2020 Nu.Ku. Dated 17.02.2021 and that orders were passed after the enquiry was completed on ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 8 of 14 Cont.P.No.1292 of 2022 27.08.2021. It is submitted that it was well within the time stipulated in the order dated 01.03.2021 and made in W.P.No.4507 of 2021. Hence, the order dated passed in W.P.No.4507 of 2021 has been duly complied with and regarded by the respondents herein.
18. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no violation as alleged by the petitioner in complying with the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.4507 of 2021. It is further submitted that since the above writ petition was disposed at the time of admission itself, the respondent had no occasion to place on records regarding enquiry U/S 81 against the petitioner's husband late.Mr.G.Charles Sugumar, who was placed under suspension and was facing said enquiry said above.
19. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the records available before this Court.
20. The auction which has been held on 07.12.2021 cannot be said to be in violation of orders of this Court dated 01.03.2021 in ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 9 of 14 Cont.P.No.1292 of 2022 W.P.No.4507 of 2021. This order was prior to the death of the petitioner's husband on 20.06.2021.
21. This Court directed the second respondent herein to proceed with the inquiry within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent proceeded with the auction after issuing a paper publication on Malai Murasu. The pledge jewels and ornaments were auctioned on 07.12.2021 after due notice.
22. The petitioner herself came to know that the jewels/ornaments pledged before the second respondent bank were proposed to be auctioned on 07.12.2021. Nothing stopped, the petitioner from either approaching this Court earlier for the second time or in the alternative to pay the outstanding amount immediately on coming to know that the auction was proposed to be held on 07.12.2021.
23. It is not open to the petitioner to say that notice of the proposed auction was addressed to the deceased husband and not to the petitioner. It was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to have informed the second ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 10 of 14 Cont.P.No.1292 of 2022 respondent about the death of the petitioner's husband on 20.06.2021.
24. In any event, the facts of the case is that the petitioner has not repaid the loan loan availed by the petitioner's husband from the second respondent bank. Therefore, there is no merits in the contempt petition.
25. In the auction held on 07.12.2021, the sale of the pledged jewels has fetched a sum of Rs.13.05 lakhs. It was however incumbent on the part of the second respondent to auction pledged jewels /ornaments for the defaulted amount and restricted sale to recover the dues from the petitioner's husband for the loan availed by him. The second respondent has however auctioned the entire jewels.
26. Be that as it may, after adjusting the amount towards jewels loan to the extent of Rs.7.01 lakhs borrowed by the petitioner's husband there is a balance Rs.5.37 lakhs which may have to be appropriated towards the dues for the alleged loan availed one Veerakumar, Secretary to the Tamil Nadu Co-operative and Textile Limited for which, the petitioner's husband had stood as a guarantor. Whether the petitioner's ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 11 of 14 Cont.P.No.1292 of 2022 husband had indeed stood as a guarantor or not cannot be decided in this proceedings. Therefore, while dismissing the contempt petition.
27. Therefore, while dismissing the contempt petition, I direct the second respondent to furnish the details of the alleged guarantee given by the petitioner's husband Late.Mr.G.Charles Sugumar to defend herself. Copy of the surcharge proceedings has not been enclosed. They, however pertain to surcharge proceedings against petitioner's husband Late.Mr.G.Charles Sugumar in his capacity as the Secretary of the CE-11, Erode District Judicial Staff Thrift and Co- operative Society Limited.
28. In case, the amount has been either recovered from Mr.Veerakumar, the amount lying in excess of Rs.5.37 lakhs shall be kept as a security for being appropriated for alleged dues from the petitioner's husband in the two sur-charge proceedings.
29. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the surcharge order in ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 12 of 14 Cont.P.No.1292 of 2022 accordance with law.
30. This contempt petition stands dismissed with the above direction.
02.09.2022 Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes / No rgm/kkd C.SARAVANAN,J.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 13 of 14 Cont.P.No.1292 of 2022 kkd Cont.P.No.1292 of 2022 02.09.2022 ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 14 of 14