W J SUBRAMANIAM Vs. KAKARLA USHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contempt petition came to be filed for the alleged disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.2403 of 2004 dated 10.2.2004. By the aforesaid order, this Court directed the 1st respondent to recover the amount in terms of the Government Order in G.O.Nos.1004 and 1005 Labour and Employment Department dated 19.11.2002, authorising her to recover the amounts computed by the Labour Court in C.P.Nos.361 of 1989, 2021 of 1992 and 773 of 1994 vide order dated 28.11.1995 within a time frame. Since the said order was not complied with, the contempt came to be filed.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up on 8.4.2011, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate to get instructions from the 1st respondent. Subsequently, while the Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk by a written instruction dated 10.1.2011 informed this Court that the amounts of Rs.39,700/- and Rs.69,240/- could not be recovered from the employer of the petitioner on account of the fact that the properties of the employer were seized and sealed by the Indian Bank, ARM Branch, Chennai by an order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in CRL.M.P.No.581 of 2010 dated 4.6.2010 and the bank was proposing to sell the property in open auction. Admittedly, the properties were taken possession in terms of SARFAESI Act. When the revenue authorities contacted the Indian Bank, ARM Branch and informed him that the amounts are to be recovered as Government dues in terms of Revenue Recovery Act and the Revenue Recovery Certified Authorities have to recover Rs.1,08,940/-, the Manager of the Bank informed them that he will contact his head office and get back to them. It is under the circumstances, the petitioner filed a Sub Application No.334 of 2011 for impleading the Branch Manager, Indian Bank, ARM Branch, Chennai as a party respondent to the Contempt Petition. When the matter came up on 16.6.2011, this Court directed private notice to be served including a Notice on the Standing Counsel of the Indian Bank. Accordingly, notice was served and the proof of service was also filed.

(3.) AFTER notice was given under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and as there was no response, the 2nd respondent took symbolic possession of the mortgaged property on 19.7.2005. Because of the several stay petitions, the property could not be brought under auction and a petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court. By order dated 4.6.2010, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he took physical possession of the property on 29.7.2010. The borrower filed S.A.No.51 of 2010 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for entering premises, which was also dismissed. Once again the matter was referred to Lok Adalat and finally the borrower agreed to pay Rs.225 lakhs. They also obtained an exparte order before Debt Recovery Tribunal from proceeding further.