K JAYARAMAN Vs. T S RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three applications have been filed by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Chennai, who Is the Garnishee in Appln. No.1969 of 1999. These applications have been filed praying for a decision on the point raised by the petitioner as to whether he is liable to the second respondent/third defendant and consequently to the first respondent/plaintiff and to provide an opportunity to contest the application, pending disposal of the application, to stay payment out of the amount of Rs.30 lakhs in credit of the suit made by the petitioner and also a direction to deposit the amount of Rs. 30 lakhs in fixed deposit so that it may accrue interest, pending disposal of the suit.

(2.) The Company Secretary of Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited has filed an affidavit in support of the applications raising the following contentions :- Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited known as TIDCO has no privity of contract either with the plaintiff or the 3rd defendant in C. S. No.741 of 1998. On the Garnishee application taken out by the plaintiffs against TIDCO and the Salt Commissioner. Jaipur at the Instigation of the third defendant in the suit, the plaintiff has obtained orders against the Deputy Salt Commissioner for payment of Rs. 30 lakh allegedly payable to the third defendant. The plaintiff filed a Contempt Application in C.A. No.192 of 2000 against Deputy Salt Commissioner and the petitioner herein for violation of the order passed in Garnishee proceedings. This petitioner was not given an opportunity to raise his contentions when the order was passed in Garnishee application. By an order dated 3-8-2000 this Court directed this petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to the credit of the suit while observing that the main issues can be agitated later. The petitioner has preferred L.P.A. No. 135 of 2000 against the said order before the Division Bench of this Court and subsequently the same was dismissed and in the meantime a direction was issued to this petitioner to comply with the order directing to deposit, passed by the single Judge. Accordingly the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs to the credit of C.S. No. 741 of (sic) on 10-1-2001. L.P.A. also was dismissed on 12-1 -2001 It has now become necessary for framing of an issue with regard to liability, if any, of this petitioner vis-a-vis the third defendant. In the suit and to seek conclusive determination of the same as otherwise the first respondent will seek payment out of the monies deposited by the petitioner into Court. If the Garnishee disputes his liability, the Court may order that any issue or question necessary for determining his liability be tried or determined for (sic) like any issue or question in a suit may be tried or determined. The petitioner does not owe any liability to any of the parties to the suit either by way of compensation or otherwise. The petitioner is not liable to meet the claim of any of the defendants in the suit. The petitioner Corporation is a wholly owned Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking and the money deposited is public money and it is not possible to recover the same if paid out to third parties. Therefore, it may be decided as to whether the petitioner is liable to the second respondent/third defendant to pay any amount as compensation. Pending disposal of this claim, a stay may be granted restraining the plaintiff from taking out the money by way of a cheque application and also for depositing the amount in fixed deposit so that the deposit may accrue interest,

(3.) The first respondent/plaintiff filed a counter raising the following contentions:- The suit has been filed by this respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 53,16.750/-agalnst one Ravi, Sulochana and the second respondent Duraisamy. The plaintiff also filed Appln. No.3468 of 1998 for attachment of the amount available in the hands of the ganishee" herein payable to the third defendant. Application was allowed and the Court passed an order of interim attachment to the extent of suit claim by issue of a pro-order for of the amount available in the hands of the Salt Commissioner, Garnishee therein. The Salt Commissioner subsequently filed his counter stating that the amount is liable to be paid by the petitioner herein and he also admitted that the amounts are available in excess of the plaintiffs claim. Second respondent Duralsamy has attended the meetings convened by the Salt Commissioner and the petitioner and the petitioner has agreed to pay compensation due to him. Subsequently the respondents 1 and 2 entered into a compromise and as per which the third defendant Duraisamy shall collect the entire compensation from the gamishee and pay the same to the petitioner. As per the compromise, the second respondent/ third defendant has to pay a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs in full and final settlement of the suit claim. Subsequently the order was modified on the application filed by the first respondent and the second respondent agreed that the first respondent/plaintiff himself may be permitted to collect Rs. 30 lakhs him the TIDCO. But, the garnishees, namely the Salt Commissioner and TIDCO refused to pay the amount and only after a Contempt Application has been filed in C.A. No.192 of 2000 and a direction was given to the petitioner to deposit the amount to the credit of the suit, the petitioner deposited the said sum. In fact the petitioner has preferred L.P.A. No.135 of 2000 and the same was subsequently dismissed. The Order passed by this Court directing payment of Rs. 30 lakhs to the petitioner has become final and this was held by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.126 of 2000. In the Contempt Application also orders have been passed and it has been also held that the first respondent/plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the money in Court deposit made by the petitioner. Contention of the petitioner that Salt Commissioner, Jaipur has cancelled the lease in favour of Duralsamy is untenable. In fact during the enquiry in Contempt Application, the Salt Commissioner has made it very clear that the petitioner is liable to pay the compensation due to the second respondent. The second respondent Duralsamy filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.16811 of2000 challenging the cancellation of the lease and the same was also allowed. There is no legal impediment in allowing the application filed by this respondent for payment out. There is no need for further framing of any issue or point for consideration with regard to the order allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the money deposited in the suit. All these applications are therefore liable to be dismissed.