IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 03/03/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
Writ Petition No.28406 of 2004
&
WPMP No.34490 of 2004
N. Devaraj ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. Tamilnadu Industrial
Investment Corpn Ltd.
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Nandanam, Chennai.
2. Tamilnadu Industrial
Investment Corpn. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Kumaran Shopping Complex,
II Floor, Near Railway Station,
Tirupur-641 601.
3. S.N.Govindaraj
(known as T.N.Thirumalairaj) ... Respondents.
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the second
respondent dated 27.3.2003, made in his letter in TIIC/TPR/LAO-NPMAG/200 2-03
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Chinnasamy, Sr. Counsel
for Mr.D.Kothandaramasamy
^For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.V.Kalyanaraman,
for M/s.Aiyar & Dolia.
For Respondent-3 : Mr.Shivaji
:O R D E R
The petitioner challenges the order dated 27.03.2003, made in
letter TIIC/TPR/LAO-NPMAG/2002-03, issued by the second respondent herein,
viz., the Branch Manager, Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited,
Tirupur Branch.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as
counsel for the respondents.
3. It is the only grievance of the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner that though several details including orders of various courts
have been furnished in the legal notice of the petitioner, dated 13.06.2000,
the second respondent has not considered all those details and sent a reply,
that is, the impugned order, contrary to the orders of the civil court.
4. Though both the counsel invited me to go into the details
mentioned in the legal notice dated 13.06.2000 as well as the reply dated 2
7.03.2003, I am not inclined to go into the same and give a finding one way or
other since it pertains to the dispute between the petitioner and the third
respondent and other legal heirs. It is true that in the legal notice, the
petitioner has referred to various civil proceedings and the orders passed
therein. In such circumstances, direction is issued to the second respondent
to give suitable reply to the legal notice of the petitioner dated 13.06.2000,
meeting all the points raised therein. After issuance of reply, depending
upon the out come of the same, respondents-1 and 2 are free to proceed in
accordance with law. It is made clear that there is no bar in proceeding
against the third respondent in respect of the amount borrowed by him.
5. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To
1. Managing Director, Tamilnadu Industrial
Investment Corpn Ltd. Nandanam, Chennai.
2. Branch Manager, Tamilnadu Industrial
Investment Corpn. Ltd., Kumaran Shopping Complex,
II Floor, Near Railway Station, Tirupur-641 601.