V. Lakshmanan v. The Chairperson & Managing DirectorSmall Industries Development CorporationRegd. Office: Paulwel's RoadKathipara JunctionChennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:20.07.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALANW.P. No.29181 of 2004V. Lakshmanan Petitionervs.1The Chairperson & Managing DirectorSmall Industries Development CorporationRegd. Office: Paulwel's RoadKathipara JunctionChennai – 600 0162The Branch ManagerSmall Industries Development CorporationSivagangaiRespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a writ of mandamus as stated therein.For petitionerMr. S. Anil Sandeepfor M/s. Menon & GokalaneyFor respondentsMr. M.M. SundreshO R D E RBy filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ ofmandamus directing the respondents to execute a Sale Deed in his favourin respect of the property, namely, Shed Nos.10 and 11 in the IndustrialEstate, SIDCO, Paramakudi and all necessary documents that may benecessary for proper conveyance in his favour.2.The petitioner's case, in brief, is as under:a.Earlier, one Selvam, Janab S.M. Malik and thepetitioner were carrying on a partnership business andpursuant to the retirement of Janab S.M. Malik, thefirm was re-constituted by a new partnership deed dated03.10.1992 in the name and style of "Ashok PaperBoards" at Plot Nos.10 & 11 at the Industrial Estate,SIDCO, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramnad District which premiseswas allotted in 1989. Since the venture was not aprofitable one, Selvam retired from the firm and aDissolution Deed also was executed to this effect andconsequently, the petitioner became the sole proprietorof the business. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ b.Since no response emanated on theapplication dated 12.10.1994 made by thepetitioner to the first respondent for re-scheduling of payments in respect of shedsallotted to the business, the petitioner filed awrit petition in W.P. No.18682 of 1994 before thisCourt in which a direction was given to therespondents herein to consider the saidrepresentation. Accordingly, the first respondentissued an order dated 06.11.1995 demanding a sumof Rs.4,21,645/- with Interest @ 13.5% per annumpayable on or before 31.12.1995 and the petitionertoo, made a payment of Rs.4,26,080/- includingInterest in favour of SIDCO in full settlement ofthe arrears. c.Pursuant to the above payment, thefirst respondent had issued a memo dated21.03.1996 to the second respondent authorisingthe latter to execute a Sale Deed in favour ofthe petitioner's business. Even upon payment ofRs.4,26,080/- demanded by the first respondentand after issuance of a memo by the firstrespondent to the second respondent authorisingthe latter to execute the Sale Deed, since thesale deed was not executed in favour of thepetitioner's business premises, the petitionersent a legal notice to the first respondent butin vain. d.In the meanwhile, three institutionsnamely District Industries Centre, Ramanathapuram,National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.,Madurai and REPCO Bank, Chennai had sent lettersto the first respondent stating that certainamounts are due to them from Ashok Paper Boardsand hence, the sale of petitioner's businesspremises can be effected only when the petitionereffects payment to them. Since there was a seriesof correspondence inter se between the above threeauthorities and the respondents, the secondrespondent stopped executing the Sale Deed basedon the same and hence, the present writ petition.3.The strong contention of Mr. S. Anil Sandeep, learnedcounsel for the petitioner is that when the first respondent hadspecifically addressed a Memo to the second respondent directingexecution of sale deed in favour of the petitioner's premises, thesecond respondent cannot take a stand that the sale deed cannot beexecuted as there are dues payable by the petitioner to variousinstitutions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.Mr. M.M. Sundresh, learned counsel for the respondents,per contra, has contended that the reconstitution of thepetitioner's business from partnership to proprietorship and viceversa was done without the approval of the respondents and thepartners have in fact mortgaged the business premises for availingsanction of working capital from Paramakudi Urban Cooperative Bankwithout the knowledge of the respondents and the action of therespondents in withholding execution of sale deed is justifiable.5.I have given due consideration to the arguments made bythe learned counsel on either side.6.The facts that (i) the nomenclature of the business waschanged from time to time, (ii) the petitioner had made a paymentof Rs. 4,21,645/- which was outstanding to the respondents, (iii)the first respondent had issued a Memo to the second respondentdirecting the latter to execute the sale deed in favour of thepetitioner's business firm, and (iv) these three institutions havewritten to the first respondent not to execute the sale deed infavour of petitioner's business are not disputed.7.It is seen that the property in question has beenmortgaged for availing sanction of working capital from ParamakudiUrban Cooperative Bank. It is also seen that the petitioner hadavailed business loan from (i)District Industries Centre,Ramanathapuram, (ii) National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.,Madurai and (iii) REPCO Bank, Chennai and for these reasons,execution of sale deed has been withheld by the respondents. 8.Undoubtedly, if the execution of sale deed is carriedout by the respondents, the property in question will be a freeand independent property of the petitioner. In such a case, thethree agencies which raise objection in respect of execution ofsale deed of the property, can very well proceed against thepetitioner to recover the dues payable to them by initiatingappropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum for whichpurpose, they may even seek to attach the property in question.Thus, it is clear that the execution of the sale deed by therespondents cannot be kept pending for the reason that the threeGovernmental agencies have raised their objections in this regard.9.Admittedly, one of the terms and conditions of theallotment order stipulates that a sale deed should be executed forthe shed allotted to the petitioner. At this stage, it is to beborne in mind that the issue of sale deed execution is purelybetween the petitioner and the respondents and this has no nexusor relevance to the three Governmental agencies which are standingin the way of the execution of sale deed in favour of thepetitioner. To put it in other words, the apprehension of thethree Governmental agencies cannot stand in the way of therespondents in executing a sale deed in favour of the petitioner.In that view of the matter, the contention of the counsel for therespondents that the three Governmental agencies have objected toexecution of sale deed and the sale deed can be executed only in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the event of the petitioner settling the dues payable to them,cannot be sustained.10.Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the caseand the discussion made above, this Court directs the respondentsto execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect ofShed Nos.10 and 11 in the Industrial Estate, SIDCO, Paramakudi,and all other documents which may be necessary for properconveyance in favour of the petitioner, within a period of eightweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However,it is made clear that this order shall, in no way, preclude thethree Governmental agencies, viz., District Industries Centre,Ramanathapuram, National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.,Madurai and REPCO Bank, Chennai from initiating appropriate legalproceedings against the petitioner for recovery of amounts due tothem in accordance with law.In the result, the writ petition stands allowed with theabove observation. No costs.cadSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1The Chairperson & Managing DirectorSmall Industries Development CorporationRegd. Office: Paulwel's RoadKathipara JunctionChennai – 600 0162The Branch ManagerSmall Industries Development CorporationSivagangai3. The District Industries Centre, Ramanathapuram.4. The National Smalla Industries Corporation, Madurai5. The REPCO Bank, Chennai.+ 2 cc to M/s Menon & Gokleney, Associates SR 44817+ One cc to Mr. M.M. Sundares Advocate sR 45017RS (co)sg 30/7/07 order inW.P. No.29181 of 200420.07.2007