C SUKUMARAN Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petitioners, who are third parties to the proceedings initiated by the Respondents in O.A. No. 6 of 2001 & O.A. No. 53 of 2004, have filed the Application under Section 9 of the TNPID Act to accept a sum of Rs. 30,27,375/- as security in lieu of attachment of the Petition schedule properties and. cancel the interim order of attachment effected by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms. No. 360, Home (Courts II-A) Department, dated 3.4.2001 and G.O.Ms. No. 10, Home (Courts II-A) Department, dated 3.1.2002 and made absolute on 17.10.2003 in O.A. No. 6 of 2011 and consequently cancel the subsequent order of sale made in O.A. No. 53 of 2004 dated 31.12.2004. That Petition was dismissed without numbering the same and aggrieved by that, this Revision is filed. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners are the absolute owners of the properties mentioned in the Petition which were originally owned by one V. Revathi and the said Revathi sold the property to the Second Petitioner and one Sathyanarayanan for valid sale consideration and executed the Sale Deed dated 19.11.1997. The said Sathyanarayanan settled his half share in favor of the First Petitioner under a Settlement Deed dated 27.1.1999. Therefore, except the Petitioners, no one can claim any right over the property and they came to know that M/s. Southern Enterprises committed default in repayment of deposit to its customers and on the basis of the Application received from the depositors, a case was registered in Crime No. 4 of 1998 against the Financial Establishment and the persons in management of the said Financial Establishment and Mrs. Revathi was the Managing Director of the said establishment and she was also arrayed as an Accused and the property purchased by the Petitioners was attached in G.O.Ms. No. 360, Home (Courts II-A) Department, dated 3.4.2001 under Section 3 of the TNPID Act as if it belongs to P. Venkatesan and the Petitioners filed O.A. No. 35 of 2008 under Section 7(3) of the Act to raise the interim order of attachment. In that Application, the Accused were set ex parte and later, they filed Application to set aside the ex parte order and that was allowed and they contended that the interim order of attachment was made absolute on 17.10.2003 in O.A. No. 6 of 2001 filed by the First Respondent herein and the First Respondent also filed O.A. No. 14 of 2005 to make absolute the interim order passed in G.O.Ms. No. 10, Home (Courts II-A) Department, dated 3.1.2002 and the same is pending and in the meanwhile, the Court below granted permission to sell the property attached under G.O.Ms. No. 360, Home (Courts II-A) Department, dated 3.4.2001 in O.A. No. 53 of 2004 and the First Respondent was permitted to sell the property. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that the property which was attached by G.O.Ms. No. 360, Home (Courts II-A) Department, dated 3.4.2001 was already sold by Mrs. Revathi to the Second Petitioner and Sathyanarayanan for valid sale consideration on 19.11.1997 and the joint owner Sathyanarayanan settled his half share in favour of the First Petitioner herein on 27.1.1999. Therefore, even prior to the passing of the order of interim attachment in G.O.Ms. No. 360, Home (Courts II-A) Department, dated 3.4.2001, the said Revathi ceased to be the owner of the property and when the interim attachment was made absolute in O.A. No. 6 of 2001, the Revision Petitioners were not made parties and even in O.A. No. 53 of 2004 filed by the First Respondent seeking permission of the Court to sell the property, the Petitioners were not made as parties and therefore, their properties cannot be attached and sold and therefore, they filed O.A. No. 35 of 2008 to raise the order of attachment and that Application is pending and without hearing them, the Court below should not have ordered sale in O.A. No. 53 of 2004 and therefore, they filed Application under Section 9 of the Act by offering the value of the property as security to release the property from the attachment and that was not properly appreciated by the Court below and the Court below also refused to number the same and dismissed the said Application holding that interim order of attachment has been made absolute in O.A. No. 6 of 2001 and the sale was ordered in O.A. No. 53 of 2004 and therefore, the Court has no power to entertain the Application.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners further submitted that the Court below erred in holding that after the order of making interim attachment absolute, the Court has no power to entertain the Application as per the provisions of Section 7(4) of the Act and submitted that Section 9 is an independent provision by which any person, who claims to be the owner of the property and whose property is under attachment, may apply to the Court for permission to give security in lieu of such attachment and in that Application, the Court has to independently decide whether the property of the Petitioner can be relieved after accepting the security and without taking any decision, the Court should not have rejected the Application without numbering the same. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Court below, without properly appreciating the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, erred in rejecting the Application and as per Section 8, bona fide transferees are protected and without hearing them, the Court should not have passed the order of attachment and therefore, a combined reading of Sections 7 to 9, would make it clear that bona fide transferee can apply for cancellation of interim attachment or the final order of attachment and therefore, the Application filed by the Revision Petitioners are directed to be numbered and disposed of in accordance with law.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents submitted that as per the provisions of Section 9, 3 & 4 of the Act, once an order of attachment was made absolute, the Special Court has no power to entertain the Application for accepting the security of any third party who claims to be the owner of the property which was under attachment and in this case, not only the attachment was made absolute, but the sale was also ordered in O.A. No. 53 of 2004 and therefore, the Application was rightly rejected by the Court below. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the value of the property which is sought to be released from attachment is more than the value mentioned by the Revision Petitioners and therefore, the Application cannot be entertained.