SANGEETA CHOWDHURY Vs. COMMISSIONER SANECHAITA INVESTMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the appellant in the present appeal is that she has been deprived of her valuable immovable property located at Premises No. 662/B, Tollygunge Circular Road, Block O, New Alipore, Calcutta - 700 053 without even being afforded an opportunity of being heard. The appellant had purchased the said property vide a registered conveyance deed dated 28-11-1969 executed in her favour by one Pritam Singh. According to the appellant after its purchase she got building plans approved from the Calcutta Municipal Corporation for construction of three-storeyed building. The appellant Sangeeta Chowdhury entered into an agreement to sell the said property with one Raja Mallo on 29-7-1980. There is no dispute between the parties about an agreement to sell having been executed by Sangeeta Chowdhury in favour of Raja Mallo. The dispute, however, is that according to the appellant, the agreement was for a consideration of Rupees five lacs out of which Rupees one lac was received by her from Raja Mallo by way of earnest money while according to the respondents, the agreement was for a sum of Rs. one lac and the entire consideration was paid by Raja Mallo to Sangeeta Chowdhury. Neither party has produced the original agreement on record. According to Sangeeta Chowdhury after paying Rs. one lac as earnest money in pursuance of the said agreement Raja Mallo disappeared and did not perform the rest of the agreement. She forfeited the earnest money and she continues to be the owner of the property. According to the respondent Raja Mallo paid the entire consideration of Rs. one lac in pursuance of the agreement to Sangeeta Chowdhury and he further entered into a construction agreement with one Biswajeet Ghosh on 27-2-1987.

(2.) There was a firm Sanchaita Investments which had accepted large number of deposits from small depositors and had purportedly defrauded them. Investigation into the affairs of the said firm had been going on since long and by virtue of orders passed by this Court a Court Commissioner had been appointed. On 27-9-1983 this Court had passed an order authorising the Commissioner of Sanchaita Investments to attach such assets and properties which prima facie in his opinion were owned by the firm Sanchaita Investments or any of its partners. The Commissioner was further authorised to put to sale such assets and properties if no objections were received to attachment thereof within one month of the date of attachment. The Commissioner Sanchaita Investments attached the property of the appellant on 3rd January, 1989 and invited objections to the attachment. Two sets of objections were filed - (1) by Biswajeet Ghosh (filed in February, 1989) and

(3.) From the above order it follows that the objections of appellant Sangeeta Chowdhury to attachment of her property by the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments were never considered and decided on merits. If proper vakalatnama was not filed the objections were to be treated as dismissed on the ground of being filed without authority and if a proper vakalatnama was filed, her objections would still stand disposed of on the basis of offer of deposit of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Fifty Thousand only) by Biswajeet Ghosh. The question of title to property was left open. Sanchaita Investments got a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Fifty thousand only), the sum deposited by Biswajeet Ghosh as a condition for lifting of attachment of the property. It appears that thereafter Biswajeet Ghosh moved an application asserting his title to the property before the Bench of the Calcutta High Court dealing with matters relating to Sanchaita Investments. The said application was disposed of without notice to the appellant by an order dated 26th July, 1991 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The said order records that since Tarun Kanti Chowdhury failed to prove how he was empowered to file objection on behalf of Sangeeta Chowdhury, the objections stood rejected. This is factually incorrect as a fresh Vakalatnama was filed within ten days as permitted by the Court. It was also noted that the property in question stood released from attachment. Biswajeet Ghosh was free to assert his legal right and title to the property. The Bench made it specifically clear that it had not adjudicated upon the question of title to the property and that matter was left to be decided.