IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07/03/2003
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SHANMUGAM
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM
Writ Petition No.11982 of 1999 and Writ Petition No. 1714 of 2003
W.P. No.11982 of 1999
Sri Premananda Trust
Premananda Ashram
Melapachakudi Village
Fathima Nagar
Viralimalai - Via
Pudukkottai District
rep. by its Managing Trustee
Dhamayanthi Mathaji. .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The District Collector
Pudukkottai.
2. The District Collector
Tiruchirappalli.
3. The Tahsildar
Tiruchirappalli.
4. The Branch Manager
Indian Overseas Bank
Main Branch
Tiruchirappalli - 2.
5. Swamy Premananda
6. The Branch Manager
State Bank of Mysore
Tiruchirappalli - 2. .. Respondents
W.P. No.1714 of 2003 :
Sri Premananda Trust
Premananda Ashram
Melapachakudi Village
Fathima Nagar
Viralimalai - Via
Pudukkottai District
rep. by its Managing Trustee
Dhamayanthi Mathaji. .. Petitioner
vs.
1. The District Collector
Pudukkottai.
2. The District Collector
Tiruchirappalli.
3. The Tahsildar
Kulathur at Keeranur
Pudukkottai District.
4. The Tahsildar
Tiruchirappalli.
5. The Inspector of Police
Crime Branch C.I.D.
Pudukkottai.
6. The Branch Manager
Indian Overseas Bank
Main Branch
144, West Boule Ward Road
L.L.A. Building
Tiruchirappalli - 620 002.
7. The Branch Manager
Punjab National Bank
Sethurappatti Village
Fathimanagar Post
Tiruchirappalli - 621 316.
8. The Branch Manager
State Bank of Mysore
153-A First Floor
"V" Complex
West Boule Ward Road
Tiruchirappalli - 620 002.
9. The Branch Manager
Indian Overseas Bank
Nachalur
Tiruchirappalli - 639 112.
10.The Branch Manager
Canara Bank
Innamkulathur
Tiruchirappalli - 621 303.
11.The Branch Manager
Indian Overseas Bank
No.1/108, North Car Street
Viralimalai - 621 316
Pudukkottai District.
12.The Branch Manager
Indian Bank
No.2/15, East Car Street
Viralimalai - 621 316
Pudukkottai District.
13.Swamy Premananda .. Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue Writs of Certiorari as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Kasirajan
For Respondents : Mr. A. Navaneethakrishnan,
Addl. Public Prosecutor.
Mr. P. Santhosh Kumar
(For R-5 in WP.No.11982/99)
:O R D E R
P. SHANMUGAM, J.
These two writ petitions, in effect, seek for the same relief.
2. In the first writ petition, petitioner prays for a
direction to re-transfer a sum of Rs.36,40,000/- to the petitioner Trust by
quashing the order of the Tahsildar dated 9.12.1988. In the second writ
petition, petitioner seeks for a mandamus to forbear the respondents from
taking away from the Trust, the sum of Rs.61,30,00/-, being the fine amount
payable by Swami Premananda.
3. The facts of the case are stated hereunder :-
Swami Premananda, a Sri Lankan national, came to India in the
year 1983 and set up an ashram called Premananda Ashram near Tiruchy. Inside
the ashram, he had set up educational institutions with hostels separately for
girls and boys. According to the petitioner, the ashram was imparting
religious discourses, yoga classes and technical education. While so, on the
basis of a criminal complaint against Premananda, Crime No.1183 of 1994 was
registered on 17.11.1994 under Sections 142, 376 and later under Sections 302
and 201 of the Indian Penal Code before the Pudukkottai Police Station and
Swami Premananda was arrested on 19.11.1994. Twelve charges were framed
against Premananda and six others by the Sessions Court, Pudukkottai in S.C.
No.7 of 19 96. The charges were that during the period between 1990 and 1994,
Premananda (A-1) committed rape on 13 girls and that accused/A-2 to A-7
assisted and abetted the acts of A-1. It was also alleged that one Ravi, who
tried to expose the misdeeds of A-1, was done to death and was buried in the
ashram itself. One Divya Devi, the second accused in the case, could not be
secured and was declared as a proclaimed offender and thereafter, the case was
split up. The Sessions Court, by a judgment dated 20.8.1997, found
Premananda/A-1 guilty of rape of 13 girls as well as the murder of Ravi and
sentenced him for life imprisonment on both charges, directing the sentences
to run consecutively. The Sessions Court also imposed a total fine of
Rs.66,40,000/- on Premananda which was directed to be paid to each of the
victim girls at the rate of Rs.5,10,000/- and the life sentences on the
charges of rape were directed to run concurrently. The said conviction and
sentence was confirmed by this Court insofar as Premananda is concerned in
Criminal Appeal No.895 of 1997 by a judgment dated 12.12.2002, except for a
modification in reference to one of the victim girls.
4. Swami Premananda had deposited various sums amounting to
Rs.89,4 8,037/07 in seven banks in his name with ‘either or survivor’ facility
with Divya Devi, who was the absconding accused in the criminal case. Just
prior to the criminal complaint, a Trust by name Sri Premananda Trust is said
to have come into existence with a corpus fund of Rs.501/-, wherein Swami
Premananda is designated as the Managing Trustee for life. The Sessions Court
directed the distribution of the fine amount of Rs.66,30,000/- to the victim
girls. A day after Premananda was convicted and sentenced, i.e. on
21.8.1997, he is said to have expressed his desire that nothing belongs to him
and that everything belongs to the Trust. When Premananda moved a bail
application in Crl.M.P. No.6328 of 1998, by order dated 26.2.1998, a Division
Bench of this court stayed the recovery of fine to the extent of Rs.30,00,000
/- and observed that the rest of the fine, if paid, shall be dealt with by the
Sessions Court in the manner ordered in the judgment. However, Premananda did
not remit the rest of the amount and his application for stay of recovery was
dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 15.9.1998 in
Cr.M.P. Nos.7023 to 7025 of 1997 and Cr.M.P. Nos.5291, 5649, 5651, 6024 of
1998. The Division Bench, apart from directing the amount already frozen to
be invested in the respective banks, also directed Premananda to deposit the
balance amount of fine of Rs.36,40,000/- within one month and if no such
deposit was made, liberty was given to the Government to proceed further in
accordance with law and attach the bank accounts shown in Items 6 and 7 of the
counter affidavit therein. As the amount was not deposited as per the
direction of the Division Bench of this court, the Collector of Tiruchy
directed the Tahsildar in his order dated 8.12.1998 to attach the bank
deposits to the tune of Rs.36,40,000/-. It is against the said notice of the
Tahsildar dated 9.12.1998 Writ Petition No.11982 of 1999 came to be filed for
a direction to re-transfer the attached amount of Rs.36,40,000/- to the
petitioner/Trust. The present Managing Trustee of the Trust, who claims to be
the petitioner herein, had filed the following three suits :
(1) O.S. No.116 of 2000 } On the file of the Sub-court,
Filed on 28.10.1999 } Pudukkottai.
– For a declaration that the savings bank and fixed
deposit amounts in the various bank accounts belong
to the plaintiff and for possession of the amounts.
(2) O.S. No.117 of 2000 } On the file of the Sub-court,
Filed on 4.10.1999 } Pudukkottai.
– For a declaration in reference to the immovable
properties.
(3) O.S. No.1076 of 1999 } On the file of the Sub-court,
Filed on 6.12.1999 } Tiruchirappalli.
– For a declaration that the savings bank and fixed
deposit amounts in the various bank accounts belong
to the plaintiff and for possession of the amounts.
All the three suits were decreed ex parte on 19.3.2001, 7.6.2001 and 13.7.2001
respectively. Petitioner now claims in these two writ petitions that they
have got right over the amounts now in deposit and freezed based on the decree
of the civil court and the respondents cannot take away the sum of
Rs.61,30,000/- to meet the fine amount and to pay the compensation to the
victim girls and hence the second writ petition.
5. Both these writ petitions were directed to be posted and
we have heard the counsel for the petitioner on the question of
maintainability of the writ petitions.
6. The points that arise for consideration are :
(i) Whether the petitioner has come with clean hands
before this court ?
(ii) Whether the relief sought for is an abuse of the power
of this court ?
(iii) Whether the decree obtained in the two suits namely O.S.
Nos.116 and 117 of 2000 before the Sub-court, Pudukkottai and the suit O.S.
No.1076 of 1999 on the file fo the Sub-court Tiruchirappalli is valid and
enforceable ?
(a) Whether the suits suffer from suppression of
material facts ?
(b) Whether the court fees paid is proper ?
(iv) Whether the prayer under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India is maintainable ?
7. From the materials on record, it is clear that when the
ashram was founded by Premananda, it was his individual endeavour and he has
also been running it by appointing his own men and women and had designated
Mathajis and Swamis. It is only 8th July 1994, a Trust by name Sri Premananda
Trust was created with a corpus fund of Rs.501/-. Apart from this, till
Premananda was convicted as per the judgment in S.C. No.7 of 1996 dated
20.8.1997, the money was lying in the name of Premananda and the properties of
the ashram were owned by him in his personal capacity. It is only a day after
the conviction, i.e. 21.8.1997, he is said to have sent a resignation letter
and expressed his desire that all the properties belong to the Trust as per
his affidavit in W.P. No.11982 of 1999. Till date, no records have been
produced to show that there was transfer of funds or the properties from
Premananda to the Trust. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is trying
to make believe that the Trust, by itself, has taken over the money lying to
the credit of Premananda and also the properties. In the first writ petition,
it is stated that Premananda, by a release deed, had transferred the entire
properties to the Trust and that by a letter, he is said to have expressed his
desire that everything belongs to the Trust. Therefore, admittedly, the so
called expression of mere desire or the release deed are not valid and cannot
operate as a valid transfer or acquisition of the properties and the funds by
the Trust.
8. The plaintiff failed in his attempt by raising a similar
contention before the Division Bench in the criminal miscellaneous petition,
wherein the Division Bench, by its order dated 15.9.1998, while approving the
freezing of the amount, directed the remaining fine amount of Rs.36,40,000/-
to be paid or recovered. Thus, the amount to the tune of Rs.66,40,000/- is
covered by the order of the Division Bench.
9. The petitioner/Trust had moved W.M.P. No.17051 of 1999 in
the first writ petition for an order of injunction restraining the respondents
from distributing the accrued interest arising out of the attached amount of
Rs.36,40,000/-. A learned judge of this court, by order dated 3.8.2000, held
that the Division bench had issued directions, which is a judicial order. It
is not open to the petitioner to seek for any interim order, and if the
petitioner has got any grievance, he has to move the Division Bench by
impleading himself for suitable directions, if any.
10. In paragraphs 11 of W.P. No.11982 of 1999, the petitioner has
stated as follows :-
“I submit that challenging the conviction in S.C. No.7 of 1996 on the
file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, the 5th respondent herein
preferred an appeal before this Hon’ble High Court in C.A. No.897 of 1997.
Pending appeal, the 5th respondent herein has moved the following applications
before this Hon’ble High Court.
1) Crl.M.P. No.5291/98 - Stay the sentence of fine
imposed on the petitioner in S.C. No.7/96.
2) Crl.M.P. No.5649/98 - to implead Tahsildar, Keeranur,
Pudukkottai District.
3) Crl.M.P. No.5650/98 – to stay the proposed auction by
the Tahsildar to recover the fine imposed on the petition.
4) Crl.M.P. No.5651/98 – to enlarge the petitioner
either on bail or interim bail pending C.A. No.897/97.
5) Crl.M.P. No.6024/98 - to implead the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Investigation-I, Tiruchirappalli.
While disposing all these applications, a Division Bench of this
Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 15.9.1998 directed the 5th respondent
herein to deposit the balance amount of fine i.e. Rs.36,40,000/- within one
month from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which, the state is
free to proceed further in accordance with law and to attach the bank
accounts.”
The plaintiff is, therefore, aware that the amount to the tune of
Rs.66,40,000/- is covered by the order of the Division Bench.
11. By going through the plaints filed before the Sub-courts,
it is seen that the subject matter of the suits is only the savings bank
account and fixed deposits running to several lakhs, totalling approximately
Rs.90,00,000/-, besides the immovable properties. The suit is valued under
Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1985 and the
court fee of Rs.200/- paid in each of the suit. On the face of it, it is
clear that the amount and the property in question are not Trust property.
They stand in the name of Premananda, the defendant in the suit, who remained
exparte. Section 28 of the Act can be invoked only if there is a dispute
regarding the right of management. Admittedly, Premananda is said to have
resigned and has also expressed his desire that all the properties be that of
the Trust. Therefore, there is no question of any dispute or recovery of the
amount from the rival trustee. Bald allegations are made to the effect that a
false case has been made against Premananda, the defendant in the suit and
that the defendant has left the services of the ashram and that a new Board
has been constituted and that they have decided to bring and consolidate the
entire properties, both movables and immovables and that they have got more
legal rights to enjoy the properties (money). According to the plaintiff,
they apprehend that the defendants may attempt to deprive the plaintiff, who
are the actual account holders of the money, from getting possession and
enjoyment of the various bank balances by adopting illegal methods. While at
one stage the plaintiff proceeds on the footing that Premananda has released
the properties and expressed his desire disowning the properties, on the other
hand, it is pleaded in the plaint that the Trust has decided to protect the
properties from being squandered at the hands of defendants 1 and 2. The
plaintiffs have not disclosed the order passed by the Division Bench dated
15.9.1998, though they have referred to the same in paragraph 18 of the first
writ petition. If the same were referred in the plaint and if the orders
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court were placed before the
Sub-court, the court would not have granted the decree atleast to the extent
of Rs.66,40,000/-. The plaintiffs are barred from raising the same here since
they are party to the order in W.M.P. No.17051 of 1999 in W.P. No.11982 of
1999. Premananda and Kalananda are parties to the order dated 15.9.1998
passed in Crl.M.P. No.5291, 5649 to 5651, 6024 of 1997 and 7023 to 7025 of
1997 filed in Criminal Appeal Nos.897, 895 and 89 6 of 1996, but they remained
ex parte in the suit.
12. If the plaintiffs have to seek for a declaration that the
order passed by the Division Bench is not binding on them, the suit should
have been valued under Section 25(d) of the Court Fees Act and not under
Section 28. Thus, there is a clear suppression of vital materials and a fraud
played on the Sub-courts. The Sub-courts, without considering whether the
court fee paid is proper, whether the suits are maintainable in law and
whether the plaintiff has been properly represented, have simply passed an
exparte decree in the suits. A decree passed in abuse of the process of the
court or by practice of fraud on the court is a nullity and its invalidity
could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied
upon. We are also of the view that the necessary and proper parties, namely
the Tahsildar and the District Collector and the Banks concerned, are not
impleaded in the suits; they have already ordered the freezing and attachment
of the various accounts and have been deliberately omitted to be included in
the suits.
13. We, therefore, proposed to give notice to the counsel as
to why the decrees should not be declared as a nullity and hear his arguments
on the said point.
14. After notice, the matters was heard on 21.2.2003.
15. The petitioner is aware of the fact that the Principal
Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, while convicting Swami Premananda, has directed
recovery of the fine amount and that the District Collector, Pudukkottai had
issued notice and initiated recovery proceedings and has attached the bank
account. All these have been explicitly stated and admitted in paragraphs 11,
12 and 13 in W.P. No.11982 of 1999. W.M.P. No.17051 of 1999 filed for an
interim injunction from attachment had been dismissed by a learned single
Judge by an order dated 3.8.2000. The plaints in O.S. Nos.116 and 117 of
2000 on the file of the Subcourt, Pudukkottai refer to the sentence imposed by
the Principal Sessions Judge in S.C. No.7 of 1996 and the total fine of
Rs.66,40,000/- directed to be paid, but the facts set out above in the writ
petition have been conveniently omitted to be mentioned therein. This is a
clear, deliberate suppression of material facts before the Sub-court. In the
plaint in O.S. No.1076 of 1999 on the file of the First Additional Sub-court,
Tiruchy praying for a declaration and possession in reference to certain fixed
deposits, they have chosen to refer to the attachment proceedings. The plaint
having been filed subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, they are
fully aware of the orders of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench
as well as the notices issued by the District Collector and the Tahsildar, but
they have deliberately omitted to implead the necessary and proper parties
namely the Tahsildar and the District Collector, Pudukkottai in the plaint.
W.P. No.11982 of 1999 was filed on 12.7.1999, the affidavit having been sworn
on 28.4.1999 at Tiruchy. The suits O.S. Nos.116 and 11 7 of 2000 were filed
in October, 1999. The value of the suits has not been stated even in the
decree, but a court fee of Rs.200/- is paid. Whereas, the value is O.S.
No.1076 of 1999 is shown to be Rs.84,86 ,598/- and a court fee of Rs.200/-
paid under Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act.
16. The Supreme Court, in S.P. CHELGALVARAYA NAIDU VS.
JAGANNATH [1 994 (1) S.C.C. 1], hals held that a decree obtained by
nondisclosure of vital document amounted to fraud on court and hence, liable
to be set aside. Their lordships observed as follows :-
“A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing
something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order
to gain by another’s loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. A
litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents
executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital
document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty
of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.
One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. A person,
who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can
be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A judgment or decree
obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of
law. Such a judgment/decree – by the first court or by the highest court –
has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior.
It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.”
17. In GOWRI SHANKAR VS. JOSHI AMBA SHANKAR FAMILY TRUST
[A.I.R. 19 96 S.C. 2202], while referring and approving the judgment in
CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU’s case referred above, the Supreme Court held that the
question whether there is a bonafide purchase subsequent to permission without
notice is immaterial if the trustees had obtained an order suppressing
material facts. In KIRAN SINGH VS. CHAMAN PASWAN [A.I.R. 1 954 S.C. 340],
a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that it is a fundamental
principle that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity
and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to
be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in
collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or
territorial or whether it is in respect of the subject matter of the action,
strikes at the very authority of the court to pass a decree and such a defect
cannot be cured even by consent of parties.
18. Applying the principles set out above, we find that the
petitioners in the case on hand have obtained a decree by suppressing the
material facts and by committing a fraud on the court and therefore, the
decrees so obtained are liable to be ignored.
19. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of
the Supreme Court in KRISHNA SINGH VS. MATHURA AHIR [A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 717]
and contended that the property belongs to the Trust. The question that arose
for consideration in the said case and the facts therein are entirely
different from the case on hand. In our case, the money and the property
stands in the name of an individual and therefore, the submission that the
property belonging to the Math is in fact attached to the office of the Mahant
and passed by inheritance to no one who does not fill the office cannot be
applied to this case.
20. The Sessions Case against Swami Premananda having
attracted wide publicity, it was a sensational case. It is very difficult to
understand as to how the Sub Judge of the same place would have been oblivious
to the case and has omitted to notice the fine imposed and the direction to
recover the fine amount. Inspite of the averment made in the plaint to the
effect that the Board of Trustees had decided to bring and consolidate the
entire properties, both movable and immovable, including the various bank
balances standing in the name of defendants 1 to 4, the Sub-court has not
bothered to find out the documents under which such a transfer could have
taken place and the question whether by a unilateral resolution of the
subsequent Board of Trustee, without the direction of Swami Premananda to the
bank and a letter, the amounts could have been transferred in the name of the
Trust without impleading the Bank concerned was not considered at all. The
learned Sub Judge ought to have taken into consideration all these facts when
such a vast amount running to Rs.90 lakhs is sought to be declared and its
possession ordered before passing an exparte decree in favour of the
petitioner. We are constrained to observe that the learned Sub Judge has
miserably failed to apply his judicial mind and discretion properly before
passing an exparte decree of this nature. It is crystal clear that the suit
is a collusive one and is filed only to get at the various bank accounts and
to keep it out of the reach of the recovery proceedings, the fine imposed and
the direction issued by this court. The learned Sub Judge ought to have gone
into the question whether Section 28 of the Act will apply in the absence of
any dispute between the present Trustees before valuing the suits under
Section 28 of the Act and the maintainability of the suit. The suits are
filed on behalf of the Trust without being represented by all the Trustees;
the Trust is not a legal entity on its own; the reference to the total fine of
Rs.66,40,000/- has been made and it is admitted that the amount stands in the
name of Premananda; and a court fee is paid under Section 28 of the Court Fees
Act as though there is a dispute in the management of the Trust.
21. A learned Judge of this court, in A.S.M. ABDUL RAHIM
SAHEB VS. MADRAS WAKF BOARD [1965 (1) M.L.J.], has taken the view that
Section 28 will be attracted only if there is a dispute between the plaintiff
and the rival trustees to the office of the Trustee. A Division Bench of this
court, in MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM CHETTIAR VS. VENKATACHALAM CHETTIAR [1979 (1)
M.L.J. 398], has held that if the fee paid by the plaintiff is sham, nominal
and dishonest, the court had power to direct the plaintiff to pay the
appropriate court fee after valuing his claim in the property. Such valuation
of the plaintiff’s claim should, no doubt, be based on the plaint allegations.
A careful reading of the plaint allegations in this case would reveal that
there is and there cannot be a dispute between the plaintiff on the one hand
and the defendants on the other. As a matter of fact, in W.P. No.11982 of 19
99, it is averred by the plaintiff that Swami Premananda had expressed his
willingness to hand over his position of Managing Trustee and that by a
release deed, had transferred the entire properties, including the
contributions, to the Trust. Conspicuously, the alleged release deed or the
alleged letter did not form part of the suit and in any event, that was
subsequent to the conviction by the Sessions Court.
22. For all the above reasons, we are clearly of the view
that the exparte decrees in the suits O.S. Nos.116 of 2000 and O.S. No.1076
of 1999 were obtained by abuse of the process and a fraud committed on the
court and therefore, they have no effect or consequence and they are non-est
in law for the following reasons :
(1) The subject matter, viz. The amounts in O.S. No.116 of
2000 and O.S. No.1076 of 1999 are covered by the orders of the Division Bench
of this court.
(2) The petitioner is aware of the same.
(3) The petitioner has suppressed these facts and the positive
direction passed by the Division Bench and the dismissal of the W.M.P. for
injunction.
(4) The petitioner has not impleaded the necessary and proper
parties, viz. the District Collector, the Tahsildar and the respective Banks.
(5) The petitioner has not paid the proper court fees.
(6) The petitioner has misled the civil courts on all
accounts.
23. Lastly, the prayer in the writ petitions as such seeking
for a re-transfer of the attached amount in the light of the order of the
Division Bench dated 15.9.1998 cannot be granted. The petitioner cannot seek
indirectly what he cannot achieve directly. The second writ petition also
will go contrary to our direction contained in the judgment in the criminal
appeal as well as the order passed by this court on 15.9.1998. The prayer is
in the realm of contract of a civil nature.
24. For the above reasons, both the writ petitions are liable
to be dismissed and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
the connected W.M.Ps. are closed.
ab
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
To
1. The District Collector
Pudukkottai.
2. The District Collector
Tiruchirappalli.
3. The Tahsildar
Tiruchirappalli.
4. The Branch Manager
Indian Overseas Bank
Main Branch
Tiruchirappalli – 2.
6. The Branch Manager
State Bank of Mysore
Tiruchirappalli – 2.
3. The Tahsildar
Kulathur at Keeranur
Pudukkottai District.
5. The Inspector of Police
Crime Branch C.I.D.
Pudukkottai.
6. The Branch Manager
Indian Overseas Bank
Main Branch
144, West Boule Ward Road
L.L.A. Building
Tiruchirappalli – 620 002.
7. The Branch Manager
Punjab National Bank
Sethurappatti Village
Fathimanagar Post
Tiruchirappalli – 621 316.
8. The Branch Manager
State Bank of Mysore
153-A First Floor
“V” Complex
West Boule Ward Road
Tiruchirappalli – 620 002.
9. The Branch Manager
Indian Overseas Bank
Nachalur
Tiruchirappalli – 639 112.
10.The Branch Manager
Canara Bank
Innamkulathur
Tiruchirappalli – 621 303.
11.The Branch Manager
Indian Overseas Bank
No.1/108, North Car Street
Viralimalai – 621 316
Pudukkottai District.
12.The Branch Manager
Indian Bank
No.2/15, East Car Street Viralimalai – 621 316
Pudukkottai District.