Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The petitioner has further submitted that when the officials of TIIC came to the demised mill for taking over possession for the liability of the third respondent, she strongly protested and pleaded them not to dispossess her. At the time of dispossession, the petitioner pleaded that she had suffered huge loss and put to severe hardship by the third respondent, due to non-payment for the cotton sold and supplied to him. Even though the petitioner produced the decree in O.S. No 310 of 2005 dated 11.07.2005, obtained by her against the third respondent to the Officials of TIIC and protested, they forcibly took possession of the demised mill from her. It is the case of the petitioner that officials of TIIC had stated that as and when the liability of the third respondent is cleared, they would restore Possession to her. It is also the case of the petitioner that after taking possession of the demised mill from the third respondent, she had installed valuable machineries. Inspite of protest, Officials of TIIC took possession of the premises along with the valuable machineries installed at her cost.

8. The petitioner has further submitted that coming to know about the illegal attempt of the third respondent to deprive her valuable rights to repossession, she caused telegraphic notice dated 31.03.2007 to the Branch Manager, TIIC , Virudhunagar District. Following the telegraphic notice, she also personally visited the respondents 1 and 2, requesting them to put the petitioner back in possession of the demised mill, as it was taken only from her. Suddenly, on 07.05.2007, the petitioner was informed by the Office of the Branch Manager, TIIC, Virudhunagar, that the head Office of TIIC, the first respondent herein, has decided to receive a specified sum of money from the third respondent towards the outstanding dues and hand over the possession of the demised mill to him by 18.05.2007 or immediately thereafter. The petitioner was shocked by the information and on confirmation from the first respondent, caused telegraphic notices to respondents 1 and 2 on 08.05.2007 and there was no response. On the other hand, the officials of TIIC are making attempts to release the charge of the demised mill and handover possession to the third respondent on 18.05.2007 and under such circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to prefer the Writ Petition for the relief as stated supra.

e) Though the loan was approved and sanctioned by the Branch Manager, TIIC, Virudhunagar District, the second respondent herein, the proposal for One Time Settlement decided only at Head Office, Chennai and therefore, the major portion of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the Writ Petition is maintainable.

10. While admitting this Writ Petition, this Court, by order dated 15.05.2007, granted interim injunction. The third respondent has filed a vacate stay petition in M.P.No.2 of 2007 to vacate the interim order granted by this Court, wherein, the third respondent has submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable, as this Court cannot go into the contractual obligations arising out of the lease deed between two private individuals and therefore, the relief prayed against TIIC is without jurisdiction. He further submitted that the Writ petition is a vexous litigiation and an abuse of process of law. The third respondent has further submitted that he availed a loan of Rs.45,00,000/- from TIIC, represented by its Branch Manager, Virudhunagar for starting a Spinning Mill in the name and style of M/s.Ome Tex Industries at 114/1, A.Melapattam, Kariasalkulam, Rajapalayam in the year 2001. Subsequently, he availed loan to an extent of Rs.1,69,84,000/- from the second respondent, TIIC and started a spinning mill in the year 2001 in the name and style of M/s.Supa Omtex Spinners (P) Ltd., at No.102/1.A, P.S.K.Nagar, Rajapalayam.

11. The third respondent has further submitted that since he had cleared his liabilities towards TIIC loan offered to M/s.Om Tex Industries, he had mortgaged the land, building and machineries comprising in M/s.Om Tex Industries in favour of the TIIC for the loan availed of for M/s.Supa Omtex Spinners Pvt. Ltd. Knowing fully well that the subject matter of the property was mortgaged with TIIC, the petitioner entered into a lease agreement for the purpose of the using the land, building and machineries of M/s.Om Tex Industries situated at No.114/1, A.Malapattam, Karisalkulam, Rajapalayam on a monthly rent of Rs.50,000/-. It was specifically agreed between the parties that the rent amount should be paid on or before 5th day of every succeeding month. The duration of the lease deed for three years. Since there was default in payment of rent as agreed, the third respondent was not able to pay dues to the TIIC for the loan availed for M/s.Supa Omtex Spinners Pvt. Ltd., and therefore, the Financial Corporation in exercise of their statutory powers under the State Financial Act, had taken over the possession of M/s.Om Tex Industries.