Madras High Court
Sri Lakshmi Pulverisers vs The Managing Director on 5 September, 2019
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
W.P(MD)No.19278 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.09.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
W.P(MD)No.19278 of 2019
and
W.M.P(MD)No.15700 of 2019
Sri Lakshmi Pulverisers,
Rep. through its Managing Partner,
V.Lakshmi ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited,
692, Anna Salai, Nanthanam,
Chennai – 600 035.
2.The Branch Manager,
Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited,
5-C/5-B, Sagunthala Shopping Complex,
Vannarapettai, Tirunelveli District.
3.M/s.Raahath Matresses,
Rep. by its Proprietor,
T.K.Sheik Usman,
Kadayanallur,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second
respondent in letter No.TIIC / TNY / REC/ 2019-20 dated 26.08.2019 and
quash the same.
1/11
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.19278 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Selvaraj
For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.R.Saravanan
for Mr.G.Murugan
ORDER
Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner and Mr.R.Saravanan, learned counsel, who accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 are before this Court.
2.To be noted, respondent No.3 is a private respondent and this Court is informed that respondent No.3 is an auction purchaser. From the submissions made before this Court, it emerges clearly that this Writ Petition can be disposed of by passing an order which is not in any manner adverse to the third respondent ie., private respondent. Therefore, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up, by hearing learned counsel for writ petitioner and learned counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, ie., Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'TIIC' for brevity, clarity and convenience) and is being disposed of.
2/11 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.19278 of 2019
3.It is not in dispute that writ petitioner is a borrower qua TIIC and there has been default in repayment. It is submitted that writ petitioner could not commence manufacturing activity swiftly and therefore there was delay in commencing manufacturing activity. According to the writ petitioner, there were some defects in the machineries supplied by the supplier for the manufacturing activity and that is the cause for delay.
4.Be that as it may, what is of relevance is, a communication dated 26.08.2019 bearing Reference No.TIIC / TNY / REC / 2019-20 from TIIC has been called in question in instant writ petition and the same shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned order'. Besides the impugned order, there are two other communications which are also dated 26.08.2019 and bear the same reference number, but those two communications are letters from TIIC to the jurisdictional Inspector of Police and jurisdictional Thasildar with copies marked to the writ petitioner.
5.A perusal of the impugned order and the aforementioned two communications reveal that TIIC had conducted auction on 19.02.2019, owing to default on the part of the writ petitioner, the mortgaged properties 3/11 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.19278 of 2019 were auctioned and third respondent is the auction purchaser. Vide impugned order, writ petitioner was asked to take back the sieving machine and steel locker which were purchased by the writ petitioner from and out of writ petitioner's own funds. As far as aforementioned two other communications of even date addressed to the jurisdictional Inspector of Police and jurisdictional Thasildar are concerned, they are communications seeking police protection as well as assistance of the Revenue authorities on the ground that TIIC is expecting some resistance from the borrower at the time of handing over the auctioned properties to the auction purchaser.
6.Therefore in sum and substance, the impugned order and two other aforementioned communications of even date with same reference number are merely to the effect that the properties already auctioned on 19.02.2019 are to be handed over to the auction purchaser, calling upon the writ petitioner to take back two items of movable properties purchased from the writ petitioner's funds, seeking protection from the jurisdictional police and assistance from the jurisdictional Revenue authorities.
7.Notwithstanding very many averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, notwithstanding several grounds urged / 4/11 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.19278 of 2019 contentions canvassed in the affidavit filed in support of instant writ petition, what is projected at the hearing is that the auction held on 19.02.2019 is sham and it is in contravention of the provisions of the 'State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (63 of 1951)' (hereinafter 'SFC Act' for brevity) and this regard, attention of this Court was drawn to Sections 30 & 31 of SFC Act.
8.It was also urged that valuable properties have been sold away for a song in the name of auction which according to the writ petitioner, is sham.
9.Responding to the above submissions, learned counsel for TIIC, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, submitted that the writ petitioner has filed a barrage of petitions all aimed at delaying and derailing recovery of loan.
10.Learned counsel for the writ petitioner pointed out that some of the petitions and a suit filed by the writ petitioner as part of aforesaid barrage of proceedings are W.P(MD)No.13905 of 2009, W.P(MD)No.18076 of 2019 and O.S.No.109 of 2008 on the file of the jurisdictional civil Court. 5/11 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.19278 of 2019
11.In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court wanted to know the date on which the writ petitioner came to know about the auction on 19.02.2019, which according to the writ petitioner is sham.
12.Learned counsel for the writ petitioner respond by saying that the auction was challenged by way of an earlier writ petition being W.P(MD)No. 17361 of 2016, but the interim order made in this Writ Petition vide W.M.P(MD)No.12589 of 2016 in W.P(MD)No.17361 of 2016 on 26.10.2016 reveal that what was challenged there was a notification dated 03.08.2016 for auction sale that was fixed on 14.09.2016. In other words, it has nothing to do with the auction on 19.02.2019. Be that as it may, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that this Court has granted an interim order with regard to the auction that was scheduled to be held on 14.09.2016 on condition that the writ petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only). This Court is informed, by the learned counsel for TIIC that this sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) was not deposited and this is not disputed by the learned counsel for writ petitioner. In other words, interim order condition was not been complied with. 6/11 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.19278 of 2019
13.In any event, earlier writ petition pertains to an earlier attempt to bring the properties to auction sale on 14.09.2016 which obviously did not go through owing to the writ petitioner obtaining an interim order and subsequently not complying with the condition imposed by this Court.
14.Be that as it may, this brings us back to the auction held on 19.02.2019.
15.Writ petitioner, as part of the typed-set of papers forming part of the case file placed before this Court, has annexed a communication dated 05.03.2018 sent by the writ petitioner to the Managing Director of TIIC. A perusal of this communication reveals that the writ petitioner had knowledge about the auction on 19.02.2018 at least as on 05.03.2018. Most relevant part of the communication dated 05.03.2018 reads as follows:
'19.02.2018k; Bjjpad;W ehDk; vdJ jfg;gdhUk; vdJ fk;bgdpf;F brd;Bwhk;. fpis Bkyhsh; jpU.KUBfrd; te;jpUe;jhh;. jpU.T.K.Brf; c!;khd; kl;Lk; te;jhh;. Vyk; gw;wp ve;j Bgr;Rthh;ji ; ja[k;
eilbgwtpy;iy. ehd; Bfl;ljw;F BtW ahUk; tuhjjhy; Vyk; VJk;7/11
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.19278 of 2019 eilbgwtpy;iy vd;W Twptpl;L brd;W tpl;ldh;. gpd;g[ tprhhpj;J ; jpy; T.K.Brf; c!;khd; mth;fSf;F &.14,50,000/- f;F ghh;jj Vyk; tpl;L cs;sjhf Tl;L rjp bra;J elj;jpa ehlfk; bjhpa te;jJ. njd; %yk; &. 1 Bfhof;F Bky; bgWkhdk; itj;J ehlfk; bra;J & 20 nyl;rk; ifa{l;lyhf fpis Bkyhsh; jpU.KUBfrd; bgw;Wf; bfhz;Ls;sJ bjhpa te;Js;sJ.
vdBt jhA;fs; njpy; jiyapl;L jPu tprhhpj;J Kiwahf elf;fhj Vy tpw;gidia uj;J bra;J jpU.KUBfrd; kPJ eltof;if vLf;FkhW Bfl;Lf;bfhs;fpBwd;'
16.Therefore, even according to the typedset of the writ petitioner, it emerges clearly that the writ petitioner had knowledge about the auction on 19.02.2018 or atleast about sale in favour of auction purchaser on 05.03.2018 or atleast itself. Having come to know about the auction sale (on 19.02.2019) on 05.03.2018, it is too late in the day for the writ petitioner to now make contentions about the auction, more so, on the ground that the auction was sham. Writ petitioner is now raising this issue atleast 1-1/2 years later. In any event, the prayer in this writ petition is not one assailing the auction and it is only one assailing the impugned order.8/11
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.19278 of 2019
17.There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the writ petitioner has not chosen to approach this Court assailing the auction / sale on 19.02.2019, though writ petitioner had knowledge about the same on 05.03.2018.
18.Therefore, this Court is left with the considered view that it is clearly an eleventh hour attempt to derail handing over of the auctioned property to the auction purchaser. In the considered view of this Court, this is not just eleventh hour, but it is fifty-ninth minute of eleventh hour attempt to derail / thwart handing over of the auctioned property to the auction purchaser.
19.In this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and therefore, this Court does not embark upon the exercise of adverting to the factual matrix in detail. However, short facts shorn of elaboration necessary for appreciating the instant order have been set out supra in this order.
9/11 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.19278 of 2019
20.Instant Writ Petition is bereft of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
05.09.2019 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ps To
1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited, 692, Anna Salai, Nanthanam, Chennai – 600 035.
2.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited, 5-C/5-B, Sagunthala Shopping Complex, Vannarapettai, Tirunelveli District.
10/11 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P(MD)No.19278 of 2019 M.SUNDAR,J.
ps W.P(MD)No.19278 of 2019 05.09.2019 11/11 http://www.judis.nic.in