SUPER SULPHATE Vs. M/S. NIRMALA CHEMICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved against the judgement and decree dtd. 13/10/2009 passed by the II Additional Subordinate Judge in A.S.No.29 of 2008 reversing the judgment and decree dtd. 16/2/2005 passed in O.S.No.129 of 2003 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Salem, third defendant has filed S.A.No.131 of 2011 while the defendants 1 and 2 have filed S.A.No.434 of 2011.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are herein after referred to by the same nomenclature as referred to in the Original Suit.

(3.) Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows: The plaintiff is a partnership firm and it is manufacturing Metalic Sulphur. It owns its factory constructed in an area of 1.41 acres of land in S.No. 107/2 and 107/7 in Athanoor Ayeepalayam. Rasipuram Taluk. The total worth of the machineries and buildings comes around a sum of Rs.75,00,000.00. The plaintiff has raised a loan of Rs.19.75 lakhs from the defendant. The plaintiff has received a notice dtd. 29/11/1966 stating that the factory premises are going to be auctioned on 10/12/1996. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.2110/1996 seeking injunction restraining the 1st defendant from proceeding with the sale. While the suit was pending, it appears that the auction was held on 15/2/2000 for a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs and the sale was also confirmed in favour of the 3rd defendant by the Head Office of the 2nd defendant on 6/3/2001 and the possession was handed over on 7/7/2000, without following due procedure and effecting proper publication. According to the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 have failed to give wide publicity for the sale. While so, the 2nd defendant again issued a notice on 16/3/2001 demanding payment of Rs.45,02,205.80. Once the property has been sold, there is no necessity warrant for issuing a fresh demand notice. Hence the plaintiff has come forward with a suit in O.S.No.129 of 2003, seeking for declaration that the sale held on 15/2/2000 is illegal and void and also for consequential permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from claiming any right under the void sale and for costs.