High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
M/s.Weizmann Homes Ltd. v. The Superintendent of Police - Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4861 of 2007  RD-TN 2245 (10 July 2007)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10/07/2007
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4861 of 2007
M/s.Weizmann Homes Ltd.,
Through its Authorised Officer,
P.Balaji. ... Petitioner Vs
1.The Superintendent of Police,
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
3.The Inspector of Police,
Dindigul Taluk Police Station,
4.C.Ramasamy ... Respondents (R4 impleaded vide order dated 10.07.2007 in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2007 in Crl.O.P.No.4861 of 2007)
Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondents to give police protection to the petitioner in handing over possession of the property situated in S.No.762/3, Silvarpatti Village, Dindigul T.K to the auction purchaser Smt.G.Subashree on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 18.04.2007 within a stipulated time. For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu For Respondents ... Mr.P.Rajendran Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 to R3.
For R4 ... No representation. :ORDER
This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to give police protection to the petitioner in handing over possession of the property situated in S.No.762/3, Silvarpatti Village, Dindigul T.K to the auction purchaser Smt.G.Subashree on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 18.04.2007 within a stipulated time.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Despite printing the name of the fourth respondent, Ramasamy, he has not appeared.
4. The background facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this petition would run thus:
The petitioner herein is the financier who in fact, in connection with the loan availed by the fourth respondent Ramasamy and his brother Jyothi Ramalingam by way of recovering the dues under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, brought the building situated in S.No.762/3 along with its plot area for auction sale and that the said Subasree happened to be the successful bidder and purchaser of it. It so happened that the Tahsildar sealed that house vide proceedings dated 16.12.2006 and handed it over to the petitioner herein, who brought the property for auction sale in which, the said Subasree is the successful bidder. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that despite he having brought that immovable property for sale and Subasree being the successful bidder, he could not hand over the possession in view of the fact that Ramasamy himself occupied the first floor of the house.
5. According to the petitioner, he brought the entire property along with the plot for auction sale and in such a case, Subasree who purchased the entire plot and house, is entitled to that property which should be handed over to her by the petitioner. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that Ramasamy occupied the house illegally and he is also preventing not to hand over possession to Subasree. Hence, in these circumstances, the petitioner seeks police protection.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would also highlight that earlier, the same petitioner filed the writ petition in W.P.No.5086 of 2005 and this Court vide order dated 17.06.2005, observed thus: "2. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the application submitted by the petitioner on 23.11.2004, under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and consequently direction the first respondent to give proper direction or orders as per provision of the act.
3. Considering the limited prayer sought for in this writ petition, without going into the merits of the case, I direct the first respondent to pass orders on the application dated 23.11.2004 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order."
7. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though he is duty bound to deliver possession of that property in favour of Subasree as stated above, the debtor Ramasamy is still in occupation of the house and causing disturbance.
8. Hence, in these circumstances, I would like to pass the following direction with observations:
s per Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the District Magistrate is duty bound to help the petitioner who is the creditor for taking possession. Here, precisely even though at the earlier stages, the revenue officials helped the petitioner in putting the seal etc., to that building, yet the petitioner is left in the lurch. Hence, in such a case, the petitioner is directed to appear before the learned District Magistrate, Dindigul within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereupon, the learned District Magistrate shall see as to what happened in this case all along and for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to fulfil his obligation under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, he shall render necessary protection to hand over the possession to Subasree, depending upon the materials placed before him. The learned District Magistrate within a fortnight shall consider the same as per law from the date of representation being made to him by the petitioner.
9. With the above direction, this petition is disposed of. rsb
1.The Public Prosecutor,
Chinnamanur Police Station,
2.The Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.