{"id":3360,"date":"2005-10-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-10-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005"},"modified":"2016-03-16T12:44:18","modified_gmt":"2016-03-16T07:14:18","slug":"ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005","title":{"rendered":"Ramapandiyan vs The Manager on 7 October, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Ramapandiyan vs The Manager on 7 October, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 07\/10\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.K.MISRA  \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.KANNADASAN    \n\n\nO.S.A.No.91 of 2005 \nand  O.S.A. No.92 of 2005 \nand \nC.M.P.No.7524 of 2005  \n\n1.Ramapandiyan  \n2.Vasugi Pandian                .. Appellant in both Appeals\n\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.The Manager, \n  Indian Bank,\n  Chinglepet Branch,\n  Chingleput,Kancheepuram. \n\n2.The Official Liquidator,\n  High Court,Madras-104.\n\n3.M.Ravindran,\n  Senior Advocate,\n  Administrator\n  Anubhav Group of Companies  \n  Bar Association, High Court Buildings,\n  Chennai-104.             .. Respondents in both Appeals\n\n\n        These Appeals are preferred against the judgment and  decree  of  this\nCourt  dated  31.3.2005  in  C.A.Nos.272  and  273 of 2005 in Company Petition\nNo.130 of 1999.\n\n!For Appellant in\nboth appeals :  Mr.B.Kumar,\n                Senior Counsel for\n                Mr.R.Loganathan\n\n^For Respondent-1 in :  Mr.V.T.Gopalan,\nboth appeals    Addl.  Solicitor General\n                of India for Mr.Jayesh\n                Dolia\n\nFor Respondent-2 in :  Mr.B.Ramesh  \nboth appeals\n\nFor Respondent-3:  Mr.M.Ravindran \n                (Administrator)\n\nFor Reserve Bank of \nIndia :  Mr.C.Mohan for\n        M\/s.King and Patridge\nor Highest Bidder :  Mr.P.Solomon Francis\n\n\n\n\n\n:COMMON JUDGMENT       \n\nN.  KANNADASAN, J.    \n<\/pre>\n
                The above appeals arise as against the order  dated  31.3.2005
\nin C.  A.Nos.272 and 273 of 2005 in C.P.No.130 of 1999.\n<\/p>\n
                2.   The  company  petition is filed in respect of the Company
\ncalled M\/s.Anubhav Plantations Ltd., which is a company in  liquidation.    In
\nthe  company  petition, the Company Court has appointed Mr.M.Ravindran, Senior
\nAdvocate as an Administrator in respect of the company in liquidation  with  a
\nview  to  take effective steps to recover the amounts due from various persons
\nwho owe money to the company and in  order  to  distribute  the  same  to  the
\ndepositors.\n<\/p>\n
                3.   The Administrator filed a memo dated 24.2.2000 before the
\nCompany Court with regard o the payment of Rs.96 lakhs made by the company  to
\nthe  appellants towards the advance amount for the purchase of 35.6 0 acres of
\nland situate at Idayakodumanthangal Village,  Chinglepet  Taluk,  Kancheepuram
\nDistrict.   In  the  said proceedings, the first appellant appeared before the
\nCompany Court on 29.6.2000 and admitted the receipt of the said sum  of  Rs.96
\nlakhs by  him  and his wife.  The first appellant also represented that he has
\nno objection to bring the properties into sale and the sale proceeds could  be
\ndistributed  towards the amounts due to the Company as well as the Indian Bank
\nfrom whom he borrowed the money for the development of the said  lands.    The
\nCompany Court, by order dated 29.6.2000, has attached the property in question
\nand  also  issued notice to the Indian Bank Chinglepet Branch viz., the second
\nrespondent herein.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  The Indian Bank viz., the second respondent has  filed  an
\napplication  in C.A.No.150 of 2001 before the Company Court seeking permission
\nto conduct the auction to  sell  the  property  of  the  appellant  after  due
\npublication and permission was granted on 30.4.2001.  The Indian Bank has also
\nobtained  a valuation report dated 28.4.2001 which indicates that the value of
\nthe property as Rs.97,84,000\/-.  In pursuance of  the  order  of  the  Company
\nCourt,  the  Indian  Bank advertised in the papers on various occasions but no
\ntender was received.  In the meanwhile, the appellant sought permission of the
\nCompany Court to sell the  property  for  a  better  price  by  entering  into
\nnegotiations with the private parties which was granted.  In spite of the said
\npermission,  the  appellant  was  not  in a position to bring in any purchaser
\nimmediately.  Accordingly, by order dated 10.12.2001, the  Company  Court  has
\ndirected the Official Liquidator to bring the property for sale.\n<\/p>\n
                5.    In   the  meanwhile,  the  Administrator  has  filed  an
\napplication in C.A.No.1609 of 2001 under Rule 9 and  11  (b)  of  the  Company
\nCourt Rules r\/w Section 457 of Companies Act, seeking direction as against the
\nappellants  herein  to hand over the possession of the property with a view to
\nsecure better offer for the same.  Accordingly, the Company  Court,  by  order
\ndated  21.11.2003,  directed the Official Liquidator to take possession of the
\nproperty.  In pursuance of the said order to the Official Liquidator initiated
\nsteps to take possession of the said property.  But  however,  the  possession
\ncould  not  be  taken, since the first appellant has filed an appeal viz., OSA
\nNo.378 of 2003 and obtained an order of stay.  Subsequently, the  said  appeal
\nwas disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 25.11.2003 by
\npermitting  the  appellant  to sell the property within a period of four weeks
\nand to discharge the entire amount payable to the Company in  liquidation  and
\non  failure to effect the said sale within the stipulated period, the order of
\nthe learned single Judge shall stand confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  Since the appellant could not  get  any  purchasers,  they
\nhave filed  a  Review  Application  No.144 of 2003 in OSA No.378 of 2003.  The
\nDivision Bench, by order dated 5.2.2004, has dismissed the same, against which
\nSpecial Leave Petition Nos.4195 and 4301 of 2004 were filed before the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court.   During  the  pendency  of  these  proceedings,  the  Official
\nLiquidator  had  taken  possession  of  the land which was also brought to the
\nknowledge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  On  30.9  .2004,  the  Supreme  Court
\ndismissed  the  special  leave petitions with a direction that the sale should
\ntake place in pursuance of the order dated 10.12.2001 of the Company Court.\n<\/p>\n
                7.  In the meanwhile, the  Company  Court  has  passed  orders
\npermitting  the  Official  Liquidator to initiate further steps to conduct the
\nsurvey of the lands and also for the submission of the valuation report.    By
\norder  dated  31.3.2005,  the  Company  Court  fixed the value of the land and
\nbuilding as Rs.86,16,000\/- on the basis  of  the  valuation  report,  surveyor
\nreport  as  well  as  the  submissions  made  by all the parties concerned and
\ndirected the appellant to make a substantial payment within a  period  of  two
\nweeks.   Subsequently,  the  Official Liquidator has caused publication of the
\nsame, inviting tenders and last date of the  submission  of  the  tenders  was
\nfixed as 25.4.2005.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  Subsequently, the appellants filed the Company Application
\nNos.2  72  and  273  of  2005 challenging the procedure adopted by the Company
\nCourt in effecting the sale.  The said applications were listed on 31.3 .2005,
\nand the learned  single  Judge  has  adjourned  the  matter  to  15.4.2005  by
\ndirecting  the  appellants  to make a substantial payment against which order,
\nthe present appeals are filed.\n<\/p>\n
                9.   The  present  appeals  are  filed  by  raising  the  main
\ngrievances  to  the  effect  that  the  value as fixed by the Company Court in
\nrespect of the property  in  question  as  very  low  and  there  are  certain
\nprocedural illegality.\n<\/p>\n
                10.   In the meanwhile, the applications viz., C.A.Nos.272 and
\n273 of 2005 filed by the Indian Bank were heard by the  Company  Court  on  26
\n.4.2005,  wherein a direction is sought for to hand over the vacant portion of
\nthe property and to bring the property in public auction.    Though  the  said
\napplications  were  resisted  by  the appellants herein by contending that the
\nappeals filed in OSA Nos.91 and 92 of 2005 on the ground  that  the  procedure
\nadopted  by  the  Company  Court as illegal and the said appeals were pending,
\nhowever the Company Court has  proceeded  with  the  auction.    In  the  said
\nauction,  one  P.S.Muthukumar  has  offered  a  sum of Rs.1,32,00,000\/- as the
\nhighest bid amount.  The Company Court has  passed  an  order  of  provisional
\nconfirmation  of  the  offer  of the abovesaid P.S.Muthukumar subject to final
\norders to be passed in the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  Subsequently, by  order  dated  28.4.2005,  the  Division
\nBench  has  passed an order staying the further proceedings before the Company
\nCourt and the appeals were directed to be listed.   Again,  when  the  appeals
\nwere  listed  on  29.6.2005, this Court permitted all the parties to bring new
\nbidders who can offer more to the property in question.  The Administrator was
\ndirected to inform all the bidders who participated  in  the  earlier  auction
\nincluding the  highest  bidder to make any higher offer.  The new bidders were
\nrequired to make such offer subject to the condition that they pay  a  sum  of
\nRs.17,20,000\/- towards EMD by way of DD\/Pay order.\n<\/p>\n
                12.  On 27.7.2005, several persons participated in the bid and
\nin  the  course  of  bid,  Indus  City Scapes has submitted a highest offer of
\nRs.2,70,00,000\/- to the property.    On  28.7.2005,  the  highest  bidder  has
\ndeposited  a  pay  order  of Rs.27 lakhs representing 10% of the highest offer
\ntowards EMD.    The  second  highest  bidder  who  has  offered   a   sum   of
\nRs.2,65,00,000 has not submitted 10% of the amount offered towards EMD.  Since
\nthe  highest bidder has deposited the EMD and undertook to deposit the balance
\namount on or before 31.8.2005, the said offer was accepted subject to  further
\norders to  be  passed  in the appeals.  The Indian Bank was directed to permit
\nthe highest bidder to peruse the documents by making  available  to  them  the
\nPhotostat copies.    On  31.8.20  05,  when  the  matter was listed again, the
\nhighest bidder deposited the balance amount of Rs.2.43 crores by  means  of  a
\npay order.  In view of the entire payment made by the highest bidder, the sale
\nwas provisionally confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
                13.   In the light of the narration of facts as set out above,
\nit is to be seen that due to the persistent  effort  made  by  the  appellants
\nherein  the  property which was sold in the auction by the Company Court for a
\nsum of Rs.1.32 crores has fetched a  higher  amount  viz.,  Rs.2.7  0  crores.
\nSince  the additional amount is realised at the instance of the appellants and
\nadmittedly, the secured creditor viz., the Indian Bank having chosen to remain
\ncontent with the amount  of  Rs.1.32  crores  which  offer  was  provisionally
\nconfirmed  by  the  Company  Court  and  which order was not challenged by the
\nIndian Bank, we have considered the plea of the learned senior counsel for the
\nappellants as well as the Administrator to apportion the higher  amount  among
\nthemselves in exclusion of the Indian Bank.\n<\/p>\n
                14.  Accordingly, the matter was heard on various dates and we
\nhave  directed  the  Indian  Bank  as  to  whether  the amounts payable by the
\nappellants could be reduced in terms of the Reserve Bank of  India  guidelines
\nunder  the one time settlement scheme or in terms of the settlement arrived at
\nby the very same Indian Bank before the Lok  Adalat  organised  by  the  State
\nLegal Services  Authority.    The  Indian  Bank has expressed its inability to
\napply the principles of one time settlement scheme by contending that the bank
\nhas filed an  application  before  the  Debt  Recovery  Tribunal,  claiming  a
\nsubstantial amount  by  way of principal as well as accrued interest.  We have
\nalso directed a responsible Officer of the Reserve Bank of  India  to  apprise
\nthe  Court  about  the manner in which the guidelines envisaged by the Reserve
\nBank of India as a one time settlement should be implemented.  In pursuance of
\nthe said direction,  the  counsel  representing  the  Reserve  Bank  of  India
\nreported  that  to  consider  the  claim  of  one  time settlement, though the
\nguidelines are framed, each matter has to be decided by the concerned bank  by
\nconsidering all the details of the borrowers.\n<\/p>\n
                15.   In  the meanwhile, we have also directed the State Legal
\nServices Authority to make available all the details pertaining to  the  cases
\nwhich  were settled in the recent past, wherein the Indian Bank has agreed for
\na settlement for a smaller amount as against the larger claim.    Accordingly,
\nthe said particulars were made available by the said authority.\n<\/p>\n
                16.   Learned  counsel for the appellants contended that there
\nis no impediment on the part of the Indian Bank to treat the loan  account  of
\nthe  appellants  on par with other account holders for which the scheme of one
\ntime settlement was made applicable.  According to him, inasmuch as  the  said
\nscheme  was  in  force  till  September  2004  and the present proceedings was
\ninitiated and pending from the year 2000 onwards,  the  benefit  of  the  said
\nscheme should  be  made  applicable  to  the  appellants  also.  It is further
\ncontended that the subject matter of the loan account forms part of  two  loan
\nviz.,  17,50,000\/-  and  Rs.6,76,300\/-  in all totalling to Rs.23,91,300\/- was
\ndisbursed in the year 1987 by obtaining finance from the NABARD, to which  the
\ninterest  rate  was  being  charged only 6% and the Indian Bank is expected to
\ncharge only 2 % over and above the said 6% as per the terms and conditions  of
\nthe sanction  of  the  said amount by NABARD.  According to the learned senior
\ncounsel, if the simple rate of interest is calculated at the rate of  9%,  the
\ninterest works out to Rs.56,19,555\/- and if the same is calculated at the rate
\nof 12%,  it  works  out  to  Rs.66,95,640\/-.    Learned senior counsel further
\ncontended that the Indian Bank has  chosen  to  calculate  the  interest  with
\nhalf-yearly  rests  along with penal rate of interest with the minimum rate of
\ninterest as 12.5% which is not permissible in law as per the decision  of  the
\nApex Court  in Corporation Bank vs.  D.S.Gowda<\/a> (1994 (5) SCC 213), the bank is
\nentitled to charge interest with half-yearly rests since the present  loan  is
\nfor agricultural  purposes.    It  is  further  contended  that if the rate of
\ninterest is calculated with annual  rests  from  the  date  of  non-performing
\naccount  viz.,  31.3.1996, the total amount payable by the appellants worksout
\nto only Rs.81,90,138\/-.  According to the learned senior  counsel,  a  further
\nincome  which  was  accrued  in  pursuance  of  two  investments  made  by the
\nappellants viz., Rs.8,25,0000\/- in ‘Swarna Pushpa’ and Rs.2,10,000\/-  in  ‘Ind
\nJyothi’ ought  to  have  been  credited to the above said sum.  Learned senior
\ncounsel further contended that inasmuch as  the  Indian  Bank  has  chosen  to
\nremain  content  with  the  highest offer of Rs.1.32 crores, which money would
\nagain be distributed by the Company Court to the depositors as well as to  the
\nIndian Bank, there is no justification on the part of the bank to stick to the
\nclaim  in  entirety  as claimed in the application which is pending before the
\nDebt Recovery Tribunal.  The learned senior counsel also  contended  that  the
\npresent  loan  being  sanctioned under the heading agricultural loan has to be
\ntreated on a different pedestal than the others.\n<\/p>\n
                17.  As far as the Administrator is  concerned,  he  contended
\nthat he has also initiated several steps by pursuing litigation upto the level
\nof  the  Apex  Court  and  thereby  incurred  expenses of about Rs.5,40,00 0\/-
\n(travelling expenses, salary to the security guards to protect the property in
\nquestion,  publication  expenses  towards  survey  and   other   miscellaneous
\nexpenses),  and  as such the necessary safeguard should be made to protect the
\ninterest of the depositors since the Company in liquidation has paid a sum  of
\nRs.96  lakhs to the appellants for the purchase of the property in question by
\nway of an advance and the said amount should be disbursed  to  the  depositors
\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n
                18.   The  learned  Additional Solicitor General appearing for
\nthe Indian Bank contended that the Indian Bank being a secured  creditor,  its
\ninterest  should  be  protected since the bank deals with the public funds and
\nthe action of the bank in charging the interest cannot be challenged  inasmuch
\nas  the  said interest is being charged in terms of the agreement entered into
\nwith the borrower.  The learned Additional Solicitor General further contended
\nthat even though initially a sum of Rs.23,91,300\/- alone was disbursed by  way
\nof loan in the year 1987, in the year 1999, the bank has chosen to file a suit
\nto  recover  an  amount  of Rs.87 lakhs and the present dues as on today comes
\nabout to Rs.2 crores and odd and as such, he has pleaded that the interest  of
\nthe  bank  should  be safeguarded adequately, since the appellants do not have
\nany other property.  As regards the claim made in respect of charging  of  the
\ninterest  is  concerned,  the Supreme Court in its decision in Central Bank of
\nIndia vs.  Ravindra and Others<\/a> (2002 (1) SCC 367) has observed that it can  be
\ncharged  either on annual or six monthly rests and as such, the bank cannot be
\nfound fault in charging the interest at half-yearly rests.\n<\/p>\n
                19.  For the purpose of deciding the  above  issues,  we  have
\nperused the details furnished by the State Legal Services Authority in respect
\nof  the  matters wherein the Indian Bank has agreed for the settlement through
\nLok Adalat.  We are extracting the details of few cases wherein the  bank  has
\nsettled for a lesser amount and the details are as set out hereunder:-
\nDate of Case Number Total amount Amount Settled
\nAdalat claimed (Rs.) and Awarded (Rs.)\n<\/p>\n
——- ———– ————- —————–\n<\/p>\n
29.4.05 OA 827\/98 3,26,94,359.00 45,00,000.00
\n22.1.05 OA 2233\/01 17,96,462.00 7,05,000.00
\n07.2.04 OA 745\/01 84,82,962.36 28,00,000.00
\n07.2.04 OA 474\/01 3,59,86,583.00 1,50,00,000.00
\n07.2.04 OA 513\/01}
\nOA 989\/01}
\nOA 199\/01} 7,41,96,579.00 2,92,00,000.00
\n28.8.04 TA 28\/01 1,99,30,840.00 1,00,00,000.00
\n28.8.04 OA1881\/01 1,13,89,271.00 35,00,000.00  <\/p>\n
A  perusal  of the above details disclose that the Indian Bank has settled the
\nmatter in respect of several loan accounts for  a  lesser  amount  though  the
\nclaim made  therein  was  on the higher side.  In the instant case, though the
\npresent claim of the Indian Bank worksout to Rs.2 crores  and  odd,  the  said
\namount  is  arrived  at  by calculating the interest at the compound rate with
\nquarterly rests inclusive of penal interest.  It is not in dispute that if the
\ninterest is calculated at the rate of 12% simple interest, the same works  out
\nto Rs.66,95,640\/- as against the principal amount of Rs.23,91,300\/-.\n<\/p>\n
                20.  In this connection, it is useful to refer to the decision
\nof the  Apex Court in Central Bank of India vs.  Ravindra and Others<\/a> (2002 (1)
\nSCC 367) wherein in paragraph-55 in sub clause-6 which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        “55.  ..                ..              ..              ..\n<\/p>\n
        (6) Agricultural borrowings are to be treated on a pedestal  different
\nfrom others.    Charging  and capitalisation of interest on agricultural loans
\ncannot be permitted in India except on annual or sixmonthly rests depending on
\nthe rotation of crops  in  the  area  to  which  the  agriculturist  borrowers
\nbelong.”\n<\/p>\n
        ..              ...                     ..              ..\n        ..              ...                     ..              ..\n<\/pre>\n
        58.   Subject  to  the  above we answer the reference in the following
\nterms:\n<\/p>\n
        (1) Subject to a binding stipulation contained in a voluntary contract
\nbetween the parties and\/or an established practice or usage interest on  loans
\nand  advances  may  be  charged  on  periodical  rests and also capitalised on
\nremaining unpaid.  The  principal  sum  actually  advanced  coupled  with  the
\ninterest  on  periodical  rests so capitalised is capable of being adjudged as
\nprincipal sum on the date of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
        (2) The principal sum so adjudged is “such principal sum”  within  the
\nmeaning  of  Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on which interest
\npendente lite and future interest i.e., post-decree interest, at such rate and
\nfor such period which the court may deem fit, may be awarded by the court.”\n<\/p>\n
                21.  The apex Court in its decision rendered in  Central  Bank
\nof India  vs.  Ravindra (AIR<\/a> 2001 SC 3095) while formulating the principles in
\nparagraph-55 in clause (8), the following observation is made:-\n<\/p>\n
        “55.    ..              ..              ..\n<\/p>\n
        (8) Award of interest pendente lite and post-decree  is  discretionary
\nwith  the  Court as it is essentially governed by Section 34 of the CPC dehors
\nthe contract between the parties.  In a given case if the Court finds that  in
\nthe  principal  sum adjudged on the date of the suit the component of interest
\nis disproportionate with the component of the principal sum actually  advanced
\nthe  Court  may exercise its discretion in awarding interest pendente lite and
\npost-decree interest at a  lower  rate  or  may  even  decline  awarding  such
\ninterest.   The  discretion  shall  be  exercised  fairly, judiciously and for
\nreasons and not in an arbitrary or fanciful manner.” (Emphasis supplied by us)<\/p>\n
                22.  In the light of the principles as set out  above  and  in
\norder  to  pass  an  equitable  order,  we  have  taken  note of the following
\naspects:-\n<\/p>\n
        a) The  suit  was  filed  in  the  year  1999  to  recover  a  sum  of
\nRs.87,07,258\/- with  future  interest.   Till the date of filing the suit, the
\nrate of interest charged by the bank varied from 12.5% onwards upto 19.8 5% at
\nhalf-yearly rests including penal interest.\n<\/p>\n
        b) As  per  the  pleadings  as  set  out  in  the  plaint,  a  sum  of
\nRs.32,74,611\/-  is indicated as outstanding towards the principal and a sum of
\nRs.54,32,647\/- is indicated as memorandum of interest.\n<\/p>\n
        c) It is not in dispute that the appellants  have  borrowed  the  loan
\nonly for  agricultural  purposes.    If  that  is  so, the said loan should be
\ntreated on a different pedestal as per the decision of the Apex Court rendered
\nin Central Bank of India’s case referred to supra.\n<\/p>\n
        d) Since the suit is filed in the year 1999, claiming a sum  of  Rs.87
\n,07,258\/-  an award of interest pendente lite and post-decree is discretionary
\nwith the Court as per the decision of Central Bank of  India’s  case,  wherein
\ndiscretion  is  conferred  upon  the Court either to award a lower interest or
\neven declined to award any interest.  If such principle  is  adopted,  in  our
\nopinion,  the  bank’s interest can be protected by awarding an interest of 10%
\napproximately on the suit claim viz., Rs.87,07,258\/- for a period of six years
\nby taking note of the fact that the suit was filed in the year 1999.    e)
\nEven though Indian bank  has  chosen  to  issue  advertisements  to  sell  the
\nproperty on various occasions, there was no bid from the general public.\n<\/p>\n
        f) The Indian Bank has not chosen to file any further appeal aggrieved
\nagainst  the  highest  bid  of  Rs.1.32 crores which was offered by the bidder
\nbefore the Company Court and it is only at the instance of the appellants, the
\nhigher amount of Rs.2.70 crores is realised.  If the matter would have  rested
\nat  that  stage,  the Bank and Respondent No.2 and 3 would have shared Rs.1.32
\ncrores and may be the Bank would have got a personal decree in the suit  filed
\nbefore the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which would have been of no practical use.\n<\/p>\n
        g) The Indian Bank has chosen to settle for a meagre amount as against
\nthe  amount  claimed as one time settlement before the Lok Adalat in number of
\ncases.\n<\/p>\n
        h) It is not in dispute that the appellants  do  not  have  any  other
\nproperty  and  as  such,  the suit is filed by the Indian Bank before the Debt
\nRecovery Tribunal is  allowed  to  be  proceeded  with,  necessarily  all  the
\nquestions  raised  by  the  appellants  such  as  the payments made on various
\noccasions and investment made by the Indian Bank in mutual  funds  etc.,  will
\nhave  to  be gone into and the bank has to establish its claim to get a decree
\nas claimed therein, which would be time consuming.\n<\/p>\n
        i) Having regard to the  fact  that  the  loan  which  was  sanctioned
\noriginally  works  out  to  only  Rs.21,06,264\/-  (Rupees  Twentyone Lakhs Six
\nThousand Two Hundred and Sixtyfour only) and the Indian Bank has disbursed the
\nsaid sum from and out of the finance obtained by NABARD  at  the  rate  of  6%
\ninterest  and  considering  the  fact  that huge payments were made on several
\noccasions by the appellants which was adjusted towards  interest,  the  amount
\nwhich is presently quantified and payable to the Indian Bank would be seven or
\neight times over and above the principal sum.\n<\/p>\n
        j) The amount of Rs.96 lakhs was paid by the Anubhav Plantations Ltd.,
\nlong  back,  out  of  total  sale consideration of about Rs.1.80 crores and we
\nintend to protect the Indian Bank rather than Anubhav Plantations  Ltd.,  with
\nregard to the claim of interest is concerned, since the Indian Bank is dealing
\nwith the public money.\n<\/p>\n
        k)  Since the present litigation has commenced as early as in the year
\n2000, and some of the proceedings were pursued upto the level of  Apex  Court,
\nin  order  to  give  a  quietus  to  the  entire  matter, it would be just and
\nnecessary to pass an order so as it should bring the entire  litigation  to  a
\nlogical end.\n<\/p>\n
                23.  For the aforesaid reasons and in the interest of justice,
\nthe sum of Rs.2.70 crores should be apportioned in the following manner:-\n<\/p>\n
        a)  Indian  Bank\/Respondent-1  –  a  sum of Rs.1.40 crores (Rupees One
\nCrore and Forty Lakhs only).\n<\/p>\n
        b) The Administrator representing the Anubhav Plantations  Limited  is
\nentitled  to receive a sum of Rs.1 crore (Rupees One Crore Only), out of which
\namount, he shall draw the expenses incurred by  him  as  per  the  memo  filed
\nbefore the Court.\n<\/p>\n
        c)  The  Official  Liquidator  is  entitled to withdraw the incidental
\nexpenses such as the payment of Rs.20,000\/- from  the  Punjab  National  Bank,
\nwhich  was  paid  to the previous bidder as per our order dated 3.10 .2005 and
\nother expenses.\n<\/p>\n
        d) After adjusting the payments under  the  heading  a,b  and  c,  the
\nappellants are entitled for the remaining amount.\n<\/p>\n
        e)  The EMD which was ordered to be deposited in the Indian Bank shall
\nbe adjusted towards the amount payable to the Indian Bank.\n<\/p>\n
        f) The concerned bank viz., Punjab National Bank, wherein  the  amount
\nis  lying  in  deposit  pursuant  to  the  earlier  order of this Court, shall
\ndisburse the amount, as indicated above, to the  appellants  as  well  as  the
\nAnubhav  Plantations Ltd represented by Administrator, the Official Liquidator
\nand Indian Bank within a  period  of  ten  days  from  today.    The  Official
\nLiquidator  shall  send  necessary  communication  by  calculating  the amount
\npayable to all the parties concerned on or before 13.10.2005.\n<\/p>\n
                24.  In view of the order passed as above, it  is  made  clear
\nthat  the  bank  shall  not  pursue its claim as against the appellants in the
\nproceedings initiated against them before the Debt Recovery Tribunal  and  the
\nabove  payments  should  be treated as a full and final settlement towards the
\nentire amount payable to the Indian Bank.\n<\/p>\n
                25.  In the light of the above, the  highest  bid  offered  by
\nIndus  City  Scapes  is  confirmed  and the Official Liquidator is directed to
\ninitiate further action including execution of the sale deed in favour of  the
\nhighest bidder.    The  Indian  Bank  is  also  directed  to hand over all the<\/p>\n
original title deeds to the highest bidder within a period of seven days  from
\ntoday.  The   appeals  are  disposed  of  in  the  above  terms.    No  costs.
\nConsequently, connected CMP is closed.\n<\/p>\n
                26.  In the course of hearing, we had  requested  the  Reserve
\nBank  of  India  Officer  to  remain  present and assist in the hearing of the
\nmatter.  We place on record  our  appreciation  for  the  invaluable  services
\nrendered by such Officer as well as the counsel appearing for the Reserve Bank
\nof India.  Reserve Bank of India Officer’s presence is discharged.\n<\/p>\n
Internet :  Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Index :  Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Svn <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Ramapandiyan vs The Manager on 7 October, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 07\/10\/2005 Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice P.K.MISRA and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.KANNADASAN O.S.A.No.91 of 2005 and O.S.A. No.92 of 2005 and C.M.P.No.7524 of 2005 1.Ramapandiyan 2.Vasugi Pandian .. Appellant in both Appeals -Vs- 1.The Manager, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3360","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamapandiyan vs The Manager on 7 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramapandiyan vs The Manager on 7 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-16T07:14:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramapandiyan vs The Manager on 7 October, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-16T07:14:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005\"},\"wordCount\":4164,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005\",\"name\":\"Ramapandiyan vs The Manager on 7 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-16T07:14:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramapandiyan vs The Manager on 7 October, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ramapandiyan vs The Manager on 7 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramapandiyan vs The Manager on 7 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-16T07:14:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramapandiyan vs The Manager on 7 October, 2005","datePublished":"2005-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-16T07:14:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005"},"wordCount":4164,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005","name":"Ramapandiyan vs The Manager on 7 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-16T07:14:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramapandiyan-vs-the-manager-on-7-october-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramapandiyan vs The Manager on 7 October, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3360","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3360"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3360\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3360"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3360"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3360"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}