Sri Chandru v. K. Nagarajan

textile business in the name and style of M/s.Sri Ashtalakshmi Tex atDoor No.59, Pulikuthi main road, Gugai, Salem. Each of defendants 1and 2 are the sole proprietors of the said proprietary concerns. Bothdefendants 1 and 2 have availed financial assistance for theirbusiness concerns for which defendants 1 and 2 have mortgaged theirproperties viz., suit item Nos. 2 to 7 in favour of 5th defendant Bankby creating an equitable mortgage in respect of the said properties.By virtue of creation of equitable mortgage by defendants 1 and 2, 5thdefendant Bank is having secured interest in suit Item Nos.2 to 7properties. The loan accounts of defendants 1 and 2 were not regularas per their repayment schedule stipulated in the loan and securitydocuments. Amount of Rs.10,62,402.31 and Rs.12,87,875.75ps werestated to be due from the defendants 1 and 2. Since the defendants 1and 2 have failed and neglected to repay the loan amount, 5thdefendant Bank had sent demand notice to defendants 1 and 2 underSection 13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short,"SARFAESI Act"). The 5th defendant had also taken possession of theproperties by exercising its power conferred under Section 13(4) ofthe Act. 3. At that stage, plaintiffs, who are the son and daughter ofdefendants 1 and 2, have filed the suit for partition. Case ofplaintiffs is that the 1st defendant continued family business of hisancestors. The 2nd defendant – mother hailed from a poor family andshe has no means or money to purchase the suit items 2 to 6 out ofher own money. Suit Item Nos.2 to 6 were purchased from out of theincome earned in the family business and purchased in the name ofdefendants 1 and 2. Though the property had been purchased in thename of 2nd defendant, it had been intended to be purchased for thefamily and treated as joint family properties and the same had beenenjoyed in common. Further case of plaintiffs is that they demandedfor partition and separate possession of the suit properties in theyear 1995 and several times subsequently and Defendants 1 and 2 wereevading. The properties are joint family properties and each of theplaintiffs and defendants 1, 3 and 4 are entitled to 1/5th share each.Stating that defendants 1 and 2 have no right to deal with the sharesof the plaintiffs or other members of the joint family, plaintiffshave filed the suit for partition to divide the suit properties intofive equal shares and allot one such share to each of the plaintiffs. 4. In the trial Court, defendants 1 to 4 remained exparte. The5th defendant Bank filed the written statement contending asfollows:- As per Section 34 of SARFAESI Act, Civil Court has nojurisdiction to entertain the suit. If at all the plaintiffs areaggrieved by the action taken by the 5th defendant Bank under Section13 of SARFAESI Act, the plaintiffs have to prefer an appeal before https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Debts Recovery Tribunal as contemplated under Section 17 of the Act,where the appeal shall be entertained only after payment of necessarycourt fees. Only in order to circumvent the statutory provisions, thedefendants 1 and 2 have set up the plaintiffs to file the suitbefore the Civil Court, which is not having the jurisdiction toentertain and try the suit. The Bank further averred that the suitproperties – items 2 to 7 are self acquired properties of defendants1 and 2 and that they are absolute owners of the properties and theyare having all rights of alienation in respect of the properties. Theplaintiffs have good locus standi to question the legality of themortgage created by defendants 1 and 2 and the equitable mortgage isa valid one. The sole intention of the plaintiffs is to defeat thelawful claim of the 5th defendant. 5. On the above pleadings, in the trial Court, four issues wereframed. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff was examinedas P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were were marked. Onbehalf of theDefendant Bank, the official of Bank was examined as D.W.1 andExs.B.1 to B.4 were marked.6. On the question of jurisdiction (Issue No.1), the trial Courtheld that the suit properties are situated in Attayampatti village;the plaintiffs have not challenged any of the measures taken underSection 13 of the SARFAESI Act and that there is no bar forentertaining the suit. On other issues, the trial Court held thatthe plaintiffs have not produced any documents to prove their casethat the suit properties are the ancestral properties. Referring toExs.A.1 to A.6 sale deeds, trial Court further held that the suitproperties are self acquired properties of defendants 1 and 2.Pointing out that the loan was borrowed by the defendants 1 and 2 fortheir textile business, the trial Court held that the mortgage isbinding upon the plaintiffs and only to avoid paying mortgage debt,the plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition. On those findings,the trial Court dismissed the suit for partition. 7. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, plaintiffs havepreferred this appeal. Learned counsel for appellants/plaintiffscontended that the appellants cannot be deprived of their legitimateshare in item No.1 and other properties. It was further submittedthat jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal is restricted only to anyof the measures taken under Section 13 of SARFAESI Act and the DebtRecovery Tribunal cannot go into the question of Plaintiffs' shares.It was further submitted that the litigants/ plaintiffs are havinggenuine grievance of civil nature and have a right to institute theCivil Suit. In so far as the claim of share it was submitted that the2nd defendant had no independent source of income and therefore allthe items of suit properties are to be construed as the joint familyproperties and defendants 1 and 2 have no right to deal with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ shares of the plaintiffs or other members of the family.8. Defendants 1 to 4 have not entered appearance. On behalf ofdefendants 1 to 4, we have heard Mr.S.Lakshminarayanan, who wasappointed as counsel through Legal Aid. We have heardMr.S.Pandurangan, learned counsel appearing for the 5th defendantBank.9. The learned counsel for 5th defendant Bank has submitted thatthe suit is a collusive suit between the plaintiffs and defendants 1to 4. In view of the specific bar under Section 34 of SARFAESI Actand Section 18 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and FinancialInstitutions Act, 1993 (in short, RDDB Act”), Civil Suit is notmaintainable. It was submitted that Section 13(2) notice was issuedand possession was also taken and thereafter it was found that thesecured property is an agricultural land and therefore the measurestaken under Section 13 of SARFAESI Act was withdrawn and 5thdefendant Bank had filed its claim before Debt Recovery Tribunal,Madurai in O.A.No.117 of 2008 for recovery of the amount. 10. We have carefully gone through the plaint pleadings,materials on record, impugned judgment and the rival contentions. Thefollowing points arise for determination in this appeal:1. In view of bar under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act,whether the Civil Suit is barred?2. Whether the suit property is proved to be jointfamily property and whether the plaintiffs are entitled tothe decree for partition in respect of their shares?3. To what relief, the parties are entitled to?11. Point No.1:- Demand notices (dated 3.9.2004) – Exs.B.3 andB.4 were sent by the 5th defendant Bank under Section 13(2) of theSARFAESI Act to defendants 1 and 2. The 5th defendant had also takenpossession of items 2 to 7 properties by virtue of power conferredunder Section 13(4) of the Act. After the Bank had taken measuresunder Section 13 of SARFAESI Act, the plaintiffs filed the suit forpartition. In the trial Court, the 5th defendant Bank raised objectionthat in view of the express bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act,Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The trial Court did not elaboratelygo into the question regarding maintainability of the suit. In itscryptic findings, the trial Court held that the suit is maintainableon two grounds; (i) suit properties are situated in Erode; (ii) the2nd plaintiff, defendants 1, 2 and 4 are residing in Erode; and (iii)the plaintiffs are not parties in the SARFAESI proceedings thenpending before Debt Recovery Tribunal.12. Placing reliance upon decisions in (i) INDUSTRIALINVESTMENT BANK OF INDIA LIMITED VS. MARSHAL'S POWER & TELECOM (I) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ LTD. AND ANOTHER ((2007) 1 SCC 106); (ii) V.THULASI VS. INDIANOVERSEAS BANK (2011 (3) CTC 801), in which one of us (R.Banumathi,J.)was a member; and (iii) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS,. J.SAMSATH BEEVI AND3 OTHERS, (2010(3) CTC 310), learned counsel for 5th defendant Bankwould submit that in view of the specific bar under Section 34 ofSARFAESI Act and Section 18 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks andFinancial Institutions Act, 1993 (in short, RDDB Act”), Civil Suit isnot maintainable. 13. In terms of Section 34 of SARFAESI Act, jurisdiction of theCivil Court is barred. Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act reads as under:34. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction - No Civil Courtshall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding inrespect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or theAppellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act todetermine and no injunction shall be granted by any court orother authority in respect of any action taken or to be takenin pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act orunder the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and FinancialInstitutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993).14. As per Section 34, the bar of jurisdiction is two fold: "(i) no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction toentertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matterwhich a DRT or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or underthe Act;(ii) No injunction shall be granted by any Court or otherauthority in respect of any action taken or to be taken inpursuance of any order conferred under the Act or under theRDDB Act."15. Under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, right of appeal isprovided to any person including a borrower. Under the SARFAESI Act,only one appeal has been provided i.e., against measures taken underSection 13(4). A careful reading of Section 13(4) shows that Section13(4) embodies various modes of recovery of the secured debts of thesecured creditor. If any one including the borrower feels aggrievedby the mode of recovery, which a secured creditor may adopt, he has aright to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 13.16. Placing reliance upon a judgment of single judge of thisCourt in the case of ARASA KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. NALLAMMAL ANDOTHERS, (2004(4) CTC 261), learned counsel for appellants/plaintiffscontended that bar created under Section 34 is not absolute and issubject to restrictions. It was submitted that parties, who claim theproperty, which is subject matter of mortgage in favour of Bank, can https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ approach the Civil Court, if their grievance claiming share cannot beredressed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel would further submitthat the plaintiffs' claim for partition of joint family propertywould not fall within the meaning of “any of the measures taken underSection 13(4)” and therefore the suit is well maintainable. 17. In NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD. VS. HONG KONG ANDSHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, 2009 (4) CTC 74 = (2009) 8 SCC 646, theHonourable Supreme Court considered the question of exclusion ofjurisdiction and matters pertaining to DRT and the scope of Sections17 and 18 of RDDB Act. Referring to DHULABHAI VS. STATE OF MADHYAPRADESH, (AIR 1969 SC 78), and other cases, the Supreme Court in theabove said judgment held as under: "105. The Civil Court indisputably has the jurisdiction totry a suit. If the suit is vexatious or otherwise notmaintainable action can be taken in respect thereof in terms ofthe Code. But if all suits filed in the Civil Courts, whetherinextricably connected with the application filed before theDRT by the banks and financial institutions are transferred,the same would amount to ousting the jurisdiction of the CivilCourts indirectly. Suits filed by the debtor may or may not becounter claims to the claims filed by banks or financialinstitutions but for that purpose consent of the Plaintiff isnecessary.106. It is furthermore difficult to accept the contentionsof the Respondents that the statutory provisions contained inSection 17 and 18 of the DRT Act have ousted the jurisdictionof the civil court as the said provisions clearly state thatthe jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in relation onlyto applications from banks and financial institutions forrecovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions.....108. Although some arguments have been advanced before uswhether having regard to the provisions of Sections 17 and 18of the Act the civil court jurisdiction is completely ousted,we are of the view that the jurisdiction of the civil courtwould be ousted only in respect of the matters contained inSection 18 which has a direct co-relation with Section 17thereof, that is to say that the matter must relate to a debtpayable to a bank or a financial institution. The applicationbefore the Tribunal would lie only at the instance of the bankor the financial institution for the recovery of its debt. Itmust further be noted in this respect that had the jurisdictionof the civil courts been barred in respect of counterclaim https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also, the statute would have said so and Sections 17 and 18would have been amended to introduce the provision ofcounterclaim.....117. The Act, although, was enacted for a specific purposebut having regard to the exclusion of jurisdiction expresslyprovided for in Sections 17 and 18 of the Act, it is difficultto hold that a civil court's jurisdiction is completelyousted....118. The liabilities and rights of the parties have notbeen created under the Act. Only a new forum has been created.The banks and the financial institutions cannot approach theTribunal unless the debt has become due. In such a contingency,indisputably a civil suit would lie. There is a possibilitythat the debtor may file preemptive suits and obtain orders ofinjunction, but the same alone, in our opinion, by itselfcannot be held to be a ground to completely oust thejurisdiction of the civil court in the teeth of Section 9 ofthe Code. Recourse to the other provisions of the Code willhave to be resorted to for redressal of his individualgrievances.18. The question of maintainability of civil suit for partitionis to be considered in the light of the above decision of the SupremeCourt. The suit properties were mortgaged in favour of the Bank. On3.9.2004, Exs.B.3 and B.4 - Section 13 (2) notices were issued todefendants 1 and 2. The 5th defendant Bank had taken possession ofitem Nos.2 to 7 exercising its power under Section 13(4) of the Act. 19. As per Section 31, the provisions of SARFAESI Act are not toapply in certain cases. As per Section 31(i), provisions of the Actshall not apply to security interest created in agricultural land.On coming to know that the security interest has been created inagricultural land, the 5th defendant Bank had withdrawn the measurestaken under Section 13 of the Act and proceeded to file its claim inO.A.No.117 of 2008 before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. Section 18of RDDB Act also contains express bar of ouster of jurisdiction ofthe Civil Court. It is for enforcement of its secured interest theBank had taken steps and that right remains in tact even in a suitfor partition. 20. Power under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act is not absolute and issubject to restrictions. They are:- (1) that parties who filed suitmust be party to liabilities created in favour of secured creditors, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (2) disputes between parties could be resolved under provisions ofAct itself; (3) if claim made by parties is outside jurisdiction ofDebt Recovery Tribunal or Appellate tribunal thereto or any actiontaken or to be taken under the Act and also under Recovery of Debtdue to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and disputes raisedby parties cannot be adjudicated by Tribunal or Authority createdunder Act. 21. As per the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in NAHARINDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD. VS. HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKINGCORPORATION, 2009 (4) CTC 74 = (2009) 8 SCC 646, recourse to otherprovisions of the Code will have to be made for redressal ofindividual grievance. For redressal of individual grievances, theyhave to approach only Civil Courts. When such Civil suits are filed,Courts are to be cautious about astute drafting of plaint. Courtshave a duty to see that whether the plaint allegations are made bytrying to bring Civil Suit within the parameters laid down by theSupreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India, case (2004(2) CTC 759 (SC) and under the pretext of seeking redressal ofindividual grievance.22. Observing that Courts have a greater duty to see that theallegations of fraud are made just for the purpose of maintaining aCivil Suit and categorising such civil suits filed challengingSARFAESI Act in 3 or 4 categories, in Punjab National Bank vs.J.Samsath Beevi, (2010(3) CTC 310)), V.Ramasubramanian,J., held asunder:8. But at the same time, the Court has a duty to see,if such allegations of fraud are thrown, just for thepurpose of maintaining a suit and ousting the jurisdictionof the Tribunal and to keep the Banks and FinancialInstitutions at bay. If by clever drafting, the plaintiffcreates an illusion of a cause of action, the Court is dutybound to nip it in the bud. To find out if it is just a caseof clever drafting, the Court has to read the plaint, notformally, but in a meaningful manner. So is the dictum ofthe Apex Court in T.Arivandandam vs. T.V.Satyapal {1977 (4)SCC 467}. It was again reiterated by the Court in I.T.C.Ltd vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal {1998 (2) SCC 70},by holding that clever drafting, creating illusions of causeof action are not permitted in law. The ritual of repeatinga word or creation of an illusion in the plaint cancertainly be unravelled and exposed by the Court whiledealing with an application under Order VII, Rule 11(a).9. A Court is obliged to see if the allegations offraud and collusion made in the plaint, are themselves aproduct of "fraud and collusion" between the family membersof the borrowers, so as to escape liability and save the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ secured assets, somehow or the other. In the recent past,there is a sudden spurt in the number of civil cases filedagainst the actions initiated by Banks and FinancialInstitutions, either under the 1993 Act or under theSARFAESI Act, 2002. All these cases fall under 3 or 4categories viz., (i) cases filed by strangers claiming that theirproperties are brought to sale on the basis of forgeddocuments or certified copies of documents submitted byborrowers to banks (ii) cases filed by guarantors claiming that they neversigned letters of guarantee or offered their properties assecurities (iii) cases filed by close relatives of borrowers suchas spouses, children, brothers and sisters, claiming thatthey have a share in the properties mortgaged by theborrowers and that they were never aware of and they nevergave consent to the properties being offered as securitiesand (iv) cases filed by third parties claiming that theproperties were sold to them by the borrowers or guarantorsby suppressing the creation of the mortgage and that theyare bona fide purchasers for value without notice of theencumbrances. 10. It is not very difficult for a seasoned litigant oran intelligent lawyer to draft the plaint in such a manneras to make a secured asset, come within anyone of the above4 categories, by a clever drafting of the plaint, therebycreating an illusion of fraud, collusion, misrepresentationand the like. Today, with the advancement of technology,the creation of an illusion and the creation of a virtualworld are both possible. The moment the civil suit is takenon file, the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunalor under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, gets slowed down. Thisresults in two consequences viz., (i) out of frustration,the banks agree for one time settlements or (ii) third partyrights get created by taking advantage of the situation.Therefore, the Courts have a greater responsibility to scanthe pleadings and see if the allegations of fraud andcollusion made in the plaint are actually a product of fraudand collusion between the borrowers and those making suchclaims.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23. Courts have a duty to see whether genuine grounds have beenmade out to attract the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Nogeneralisation could be made as to when a Civil Suit is maintainableor when the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted. In the factsand circumstances of each case, it is to be examined whether there isgenuine grievance to be redressed in the Civil Court. In V.THULASIVS. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, (2011(3) CTC 801), this Court held that thesuit is specifically barred under Section 34 of the Act and theplaint is liable to be rejected. 24. In the case on hand, the plaintiffs are son and daughter ofthe borrowers. Case of plaintiffs is that without their knowledge,the properties were mortgaged. Admittedly, defendants 1 and 2 arecarrying on textile business and they have availed financialassistance from the bank only for their textile business. Theproperties, being the self-acquired properties of the 2nd defendant,were offered as security for availing financial assistance. At thetime of taking loan, the plaintiffs, being young age, there wouldhave been no occasion to take their consent for offering the propertyas securities. It is in this context the Court has to analyse theplaint averments. 25. As pointed out earlier, in the present case, the trial Courtdid not elaborately go into the question of jurisdiction, butproceeded with the matter on the footing held that the suit ismaintainable. Therefore, without elaborating any further, we need toconsider the appeal on the footing that the Civil Suit ismaintainable. 26. Point No.2:- As pointed out earlier, in 1998, the parents ofthe plaintiff borrowed the amount from 5th defendant Bank for theirtextile business and with an intention to create security by way ofequitable mortgage,they have deposited the title deeds of the suitproperties – 2 to 7. Case of plaintiffs is that the suit propertiesare joint family properties and that their mother - 2nd defendant didnot have any independent source of income and that the suitproperties – Items 2 to 7 were purchased only from out of the incomeof the joint family.27. The plaintiffs have not produced any documents to show thatthe suit properties are their joint family properties. By perusal ofthe evidence and materials on record, the details of the propertiespurchased are as under:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sale Deed/Settlement deed Extent and S.No.Suit PropertyItem NumberEx.A.1 dated28.4.1986 infavour of 2ndDefendant1400 Sq.ft. (plotNo.17) inS.No.22/83Ex.A.2 dated9.12.1991 infavour ofNityanandam1400 Sq.ft. in S.No.39/2C45Ex.A.3 dated14.9.1992 infavour of 2ndDefendant 1890 Sq.ft inS.No.39/2C44Ex.A.4 dated12.3.1993 infavour of 2nddefendant747 ½ sq.ft. inS.No.25/42Ex.A.5 dated17.11.1995 infavour of 2nddefendant 2100 Sq.ft. in S.No.39/2C46Ex.A.6 –settlement deed infavour of 1stdefendant 4235 sq.ft. inS.Nos.22/2, 22/4and 22/5 (PlotNos.10, 11and 12)7 Exs.A.1 and A.3 to A.5 would clearly show that the propertieswere purchased by the 2nd defendant. Under Ex.A.6- settlement deed,dated 2.6.1998, the 2nd defendant had settled the property of 4235sq.ft. in Survey Nos.22/2, 22/4 and 22/5 (Plot Nos.10,11 and 12),which is item No.7 in suit property, in favour of her husband bysettlement deed.28. Case of plaintiffs is that the acquisitions were made fromout of the income from ancestral property/joint family property. Toprove that the suit properties are joint family properties, theplaintiffs are to adduce evidence as to existence of nucleus. Themere existence of nucleus alone is not enough to hold that theacquisitions were made utilising the income from nucleus. Absolutely,there is no evidence as to the existence of nucleus and what was theincome derived from such nucleus. Onbehalf of the plaintiffs, it was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted that the plaintiffs cannot be deprived of their share initem No.1. By perusal of the description of the suit properties, itis seen that item No.1 is only the house site and house thereon. Inthe absence of any proof regarding nucleus or the income of the jointfamily and in the absence of any evidence, the contention of theplaintiffs that the suit properties are the joint acquisitions doesnot merit acceptance.29. As discussed earlier, suit properties – Item Nos. 2 to 6 arepurchased in the name of family member - 2nd defendant. When theproperties are purchased in the name of family member of a Hindufamily, there is no presumption that those properties are purchasedfrom out of the joint family income. This is all the more so, when noevidence was adduced as to the existence of joint family property andthe income derived therefrom. When the properties acquired by the 2nddefendant are the self acquisitions of defendants 1 and 2, the 2nddefendant has also independent power of mortgage, sale or otheralienations. 30. Case of plaintiffs is that they demanded partition andseparate possession from the year 1995. At the time of filing suitin 2008, the plaintiffs are aged 27 and 32 years respectively i.e.,the plaintiffs were born in 1981 and 1975 respectively. While so, itis quite unbelievable that the 1st plaintiff even at the age of 14and second plaintiff - daughter at the age of 20 would have demandedpartition from their parents. There is also no evidence to show underwhat circumstances the plaintiffs were so compelled to demand forpartition at such an young age. 31. Let us assume that the suit properties are the joint familyproperties. The loan was borrowed by defendants 1 and 2 for theirtextile business. The 1st defendant, being the father, has power todeal with the properties by creating security by way of equitablemortgage for business/family necessity. The 1st defendant, being theManager/kartha of the family, represents all the family members inall transactions. When the Bank loan was obtained for the benefit ofthe family/business purposes, the security created is binding on theplaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4. 32. As held by the trial Court, the suit appears to have beenfiled only to delay/evade the repayment of the loan amount to the 5thdefendant Bank. Upon appreciation of oral and documentaryevidence,the trial Court rightly held that the plaintiffs are notentitled to the relief of partition. We do not find any reasonwarranting interference with the findings of the trial Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

33. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, there is noorder as to costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistraruskToThe Addl. District Judge,-cum- Fast Track Court No.I, Erode.1 CC to Mr.R.Veeramani, Advocate, SR.17550 1 CC to Mr.S.Pandiramgan, Advocate, SR.17372A.S.No.277 of 2008KJI(CO)SRA(27/04/2012)