Madras High Court
R.Venkatachalam vs Ramarajan on 24 April, 2025
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
Cont.P.No.2023 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.04.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Cont.P.No.2023 of 2024
and
WMP No.35880 of 2023
1.R.Venkatachalam
2.Shabbir Y.Imani : Petitioners
versus
1.Ramarajan,
Chief Manager,
Indian Bank,
Chiniyampayalam Branch,
1/202, Avinashi Road,
Coimbatore 641 045
2.Srinivas,
Zonal Manager,
Indian Bank,
SAMV Branch,
1 st Floor, 31, Variety Hall Road,
Coimbatore 641 001 : Respondents
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 01:33:21 pm )
Cont.P.No.2023 of 2024
Prayer: Petition filed to punish the respondents for their disobedience of the
order dated 19.09.2023 in WP No.25414 of 2022.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Sivakumar
For Respondents : Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia,
Senior Advocate
for M/s.Aiyar and Dolia
Ms.Varsha, N.
for respondents 1 and 2
Ms.R.Pushpalatha,
for Mr.C.Deivasigamani,
for respondent No.4 in WP No.25414/2022
Mr.A.Tamilarasan,
for respondent No.5 in WP No.25414/2022
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) This petition accuses respondents 1 and 2 of wilful disobedience of the order dated 19.09.2023 and prays that respondents be punished for contempt.
Page 2 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 01:33:21 pm ) Cont.P.No.2023 of 2024
2. It will be useful to reproduce the order that was passed on 19.09.2023, and it reads as under:
“IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.09.2023 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU W.P.No.25414 of 2022
1. R.Venkatachalam
2. Shabbir Y.Imani .. Petitioners Vs.
1. Indian Bank Rep. by its Chief Manager Chiniyampalayam Branch 1/202, Avinashi Road Coimbatore 641 045.
2. Indian Bank Rep. by its Zonal Manager SAMV Branch 1st Floor, 31, Variety Hall Road Coimbatore 641 001.
3. SBI Factors and Commercial Services Pvt Ltd 1057, 4th Floor, Jaya Enclave Avinashi Road Coimbatore Central Coimbatore 641 018.
4. A.Ramalingam
5. R.Chandran
6. The Sub Registrar Page 3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 01:33:21 pm ) Cont.P.No.2023 of 2024 Madukkarai SRO Gandhi Nagar, Madukkarai Coimbatore 641 105. .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to execute and register a Rectification deed in respect of the sale certificate vide document No.1007 of 2016 issued to the 5th respondent dated 03.02.2016 excluding petitioner's property measuring extent of 1.26 acres situated at S.F.No.71/9, Malumichampatti Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, which is covered under petitioners' sale deed vide document No.4648/2006 dated 01.11.2006 on the file of the 6th respondent, by considering the petitioners' representation dated 31.05.2022 and 02.06.2022.
For the Petitioners : Mr.R.Prabakar For the Respondents : Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia Senior Counsel For M/s.Aiyar & Dolia for Respondents 1 & 2 Mr.C.Deivasigamani for Respondents-4 Mrs.R.Anitha Special Government Pleader for Respondent-6 No appearance -
for Respondents 3 & 5 ORDER (Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) We have heard Mr.R.Prabakar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia, learned Senior Counsel for M/s. Aiyar & Dolia, for the respondents 1 & 2, Mr.C.Deivasigamani, learned counsel for the fourth respondent and Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader for the sixth respondent.
Page 4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 01:33:21 pm ) Cont.P.No.2023 of 2024
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents 1 and 2 be directed to execute and register rectification deed in respect of the sale certificate issued vide document No.1007 of 2016 dated 03.02.2016. The same is issued in favour of the fifth respondent.
3. According to the petitioners, the property measuring 1.26 acres situated in S.F.No.71/9, Malumichampatti Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, is wrongly included.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 accepts that a rectification deed is required to be executed as the mistake has occurred in the registration of sale certificate as well as mortgage. The respondent bank would take steps to execute and register the rectification deed.
5. In view of the aforesaid statement, the writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. W.M.P.No.24393 of 2022 filed for permitting the petitioners to file a single writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
6. W.M.P.No.23018 of 2023 is filed for impleadment. The person seeking impleadment is a legal heir of the fifth respondent. It is submitted that her father has wrongly sold the property. She has already filed a civil suit. It is for the said person to seek necessary relief in the said civil suit. Accordingly, W.M.P.No.23018 of 2023 is closed.”
3. Respondent No.4 in the petition was the borrower/mortgagor and respondent No.5 is the auction purchaser. After the sale was completed in favour of respondent No.5, it came to light that petitioners' property, which was adjacent to the mortgaged property, also came to be sold. Petitioners Page 5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 01:33:21 pm ) Cont.P.No.2023 of 2024 did not even know about it for a very long time. When petitioners realized what had happened they approached this Court by way of the said Writ Petition No.25414 of 2022.
4. As recorded in the order of 19.09.2023, respondents 1 and 2, i.e. the bank, admitted that the property belonging to petitioners was not mortgaged to the bank, and part of the property that was sold to respondent No.5 could not have been sold by the bank and therefore, offered to execute a rectification deed, as the mistake occurred at the bank's side and the same mistake has been recorded in the registration of sale certificate. The bank agreed to take steps to execute and register the rectification deed.
5. In view of the statement that was made, the petition came to be disposed of.
6. As the bank did not execute and register the rectification deed, petitioners moved this contempt petition. Page 6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 01:33:21 pm ) Cont.P.No.2023 of 2024
7. The bank informed the Court that they are ready and willing to execute the rectification deed but that could be done only if the auction purchaser and the original borrower came forward to sign the rectification deed. Therefore, by an order dated 06.01.2025, the borrower and the auction purchaser were added as respondents.
8. The fact that the bank itself has come forward to state that what was sold was something that it could not have been sold, the sale itself would get vitiated. Therefore, the entire sale has to be cancelled and the sale proceeds should be returned to the auction purchaser.
9. Mr.Dolia suggested that the bank is agreeable if auction purchaser is ready to accept the proportion of the sale consideration which he has paid to the extent of the property that the bank could not have sold and that which belongs to petitioners and bank will pay interest for the amount at such rate as the Court may direct.
Page 7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 01:33:21 pm ) Cont.P.No.2023 of 2024
10. Mr.Dolia was conscious that respondent No.5, the auction purchaser was also, probably, an innocent victim.
1 1. Mr.A.Tamilarasan for respondent No.5, left it to the Court to protect the interest of his client and stated that respondent No.5 should be given liberty to sue the bank for damages, if so advised.
12. Ms.R.Pushpalatha appearing for respondent No.4 says that she has no objection if the proportionate amount is repaid to respondent No.5.
13. Therefore, we pass the following order:
(a) Out of the total sale consideration of Rs.77,10,000/- that was paid by respondent No.5 for the property of 2.44¼ acres, bank shall return to respondent No.5 a sum of Rs.39,76,926/-
(Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand and Nine Hundred and Twenty Six only), being value proportionate to the area of 1.26 acres belonging to petitioners, bearing S.No.71/9. Page 8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 01:33:21 pm ) Cont.P.No.2023 of 2024
(b) Together with this amount of Rs.39,76,926/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Six only), bank shall pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date respondent No.5 had paid the full consideration, till the date of payment/realisation.
(c) The bank shall also pay back the proportionate value of stamp duty and registration charges, being Rs.9,02,207/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Two Thousand and Two Hundred Seven only) to respondent No.5 together with interest thereon at 18% per annum from the date of registration until payment/realisation.
(d) In addition, the bank shall also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as cost, to respondent No.5 and a sum of Rs.25,000/- Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 01:33:21 pm ) Cont.P.No.2023 of 2024 (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to petitioners.
(e) It is open to the bank to recover these monies from the erring officers.
(f) It is open to respondent No.5, if advised, to sue the bank for damages. Rights and contentions of the bank in that regard are kept open.
(g) Bank may claim all these amounts, if permissible under the contract, from respondent No.4, the borrower. To that extent, rights and contentions of the bank as well as respondent No.4, the borrower, are kept open.
(h) In view of the above, respondents 4 and 5, representatives of petitioners and representative of the bank shall remain present in the office of the Page 10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 01:33:21 pm ) Cont.P.No.2023 of 2024 Sub Registrar, Madukkarai SRO, Gandhi Nagar, Madukkarai, Coimbatore 641 105, respondent No.6 in WP No.25414 of 2022, on 06.05.2025 at 1 1 a.m., to execute all documents, including the mortgage and rectification deed to correct the position.
(i) If any of the parties do not remain present at the time and date fixed, the bank's officer is authorised to sign on behalf of the absentee party.
(j) All payments mentioned above shall be handed over at the time of executing the documents.
(k) Cost payable for petitioners shall be paid within one week, by cheque / demand draft / Banker's cheque, drawn in favour of the Advocate on record.
Page 11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 01:33:21 pm ) Cont.P.No.2023 of 2024
(l) In view of the explanation that was given by the bank that it was unable to comply with the order, though it was ready and willing to comply, we dispose of the petition.
14. In view of the above, WMP No.35880 of 2023 in WP No.25414 of 2022 is closed.
As per the direction of this Court dated 23.04.2025, Ms.Maya, Chief General Manager, (Recovery and Legal), Corporate Office, Chennai, is present in Court. Her presence is recorded.
(K.R.SHRIRAM, CJ.) (MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.)
24.04.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
tar
Page 12 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 01:33:21 pm )
Cont.P.No.2023 of 2024
To
1.The Sub Registrar,
Madukkarai SRO,
Gandhi Nagar,
Madukkarai,
Coimbatore 641 105
2.The Chief Manager,
Indian Bank,
Chiniyampayalam Branch,
1/202, Avinashi Road,
Coimbatore 641 045
3.The Zonal Manager,
Indian Bank,
SAMV Branch,
1 st Floor, 31, Variety Hall Road,
Coimbatore 641 001
Page 13 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 01:33:21 pm )
Cont.P.No.2023 of 2024
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
(tar)
Cont.P.No.2023 of 2024
24.04.2025
Page 14 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 01:33:21 pm )