Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The learned counsel for the Government Pleader would submit that by influencing the deposit amount, the Accused K.Sivakumar, purchased the property situated at Perambalur District, on 09.02.2011 and sold the same to the petitioner herein with a malafide intention, on the same day to avoid the attachment of the property. After considering the said malafide transaction, the petitioner was added as the 4rd respondent in O.A.No.6 of 2013 filed by the 1 st respondent under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act 1997, praying to attach the said property as described in the suit schedule and to bring the same for consideration against the 2nd,3rd and 4th respondents therein. On hearing both sides, the Trial Court confirmed the attachment of the property which was __________ Page4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 12:10:43 pm ) purchased by the petitioner from the accused which is valid one. The said attachment of the property was challenged by the petitioner by filing C.M.A. No. 1059 of 2015, after hearing both sides, this Court has also confirmed the attachment made by the Trial court. Vide Judgment dated 29.03.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner has now come forward with the present review application stating that the property in S.No.262/1A which was purchased by the petitioner has not been attached in the notification of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 29.02.2012. The Government Pleader raised objection that the reasons assigned by the petitioner to review the order is not acceptable one and presently, the value of the property as on date comes around Rs.30 Lakhs besides the reasons stated by the petitioner is beyond the scope of the review and there is no error on the face of record and thus, he prays to dismiss the review application.

5. However, in view of the bonafide reasons, the petitioner intends to deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakhs before the Trial Court. However, the learned Government pleader raised the objection that as on date the value of the property comes around Rs. 30 lakhs which situates at Perambalur District.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the Review Petition is allowed since there is an error in the order passed by the Trial Court as well as this Court. To that effect, the CMA No.1059 of 2015 is allowed. However, the Petitioner shall deposit the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs before the Trial Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

1.Deputy Superintendent Of Police Economic Offenses Wing-ii, Tiruchirapalli Dist,

2.Future Forex India Pvt Ltd Kannan Complex , Periyar Salai, Chennai Road, Perambalur - 621 212

3.Future India City Development And Builders Pvt Ltd, Kannan Complex, Periyar Salai, Chennai Road, Perambalur - 621 212

4.Sivakumar S/o. Kandasamy, No.335, Muthu Nagar, West, 2nd Cross Road, Elambalur Road, Perambalur - 621 212 __________ Page7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 12:10:43 pm ) T.V.THAMILSELVI J.