KAMALAMMA Vs. MURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the plaintiff in an unnumbered suit on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai. THE suit is one for recovery of money from the defendants who were running a private finance by name "Parvathi Fund". According to the petitioner, she paid amounts in the respondent finance, which the respondents did not return which necessitated the filing of the suit.

(2.) THE lower court refused to entertain the suit on the ground that the suit is barred under the Tamil Nadu (Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997. THE reason given by the lower court is that the transaction is covered by the said Act, civil courts have been barred to try such cases. I do not think the order of the lower court is correct. THE Act was intended to protect deposits made by the public in financial establishments. Chapter II enables the Government to attach properties on default of return of deposits. For the said purpose, complaints have to be received by the Government from a number of depositors that the financial establishment has defaulted to return the deposits or the Government must have reason to believe that the financial institution is acting in a calculated manner with an intention to default depositors.