w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

S. Murugan v/s M/s. Karur Vysya Bank Limited represented by its Deputy General Manager J. Hariharan Divisional Office, Teynampet, Chennai & Others

    A.S.No. 616 of 2011 In C.S.No. 937 of 2007

    Decided On, 08 February 2011

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras


    For the Appearing Parties: P.H. Arvindh Pandian, A.V. Radhakrishnan, N.V. Srinivasan for M/s. N.V.S. Associates, C. Uma Shankar, V. Ramakrishnan, M. Kempraj, Advocates.

Judgment Text

This is an application filed by the plaintiff in the suit, seeking appropriate directions to the Judge-Receiver to make advertisements both for clearing the air of suspicion and also for inviting offers for the sale of the properties.

2. Heard Mr. P.H. Arvindh Pandian, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/plaintiff, Mr. N.V.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rinivasan, Mr. C. Umashanker, Mr. A.V. Radhakrishnan, Mr. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants and Mr. M. Kempraj, learned counsel appearing for the Judge-Receiver.3. While all the learned counsel appearing on both sides agree that all disputes between the parties could be resolved only by the sale of the property, Mr. N.V. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the first respondent/first defendant, objected to the same on the ground that without taking a decision in a properly convened Annual General Meeting of the Company and without getting the support of the majority for the sale of the property, such a prayer cannot be made by one of the shareholders. But the said objection cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the parties are already bogged down by several litigations. In brief, it must be pointed out that six brothers started two companies, one of which purchased a property on which the present Udayam Theatre Complex stands. Now none of the family members are actually is management of any of the properties, since a learned Judge has been appointed as a Receiver to run the Theatre and administer the properties.4. After I made it clear that the objections cannot be sustained, Mr. N.V. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the first respondent/first defendant submitted that in the event of this Court deciding to sell the property, the first and second defendants may be given an opportunity to buy it. The learned counsel also produced before me a letter enclosing two cheques issued by another company in favour of the second defendant for a total amount of Rs.95 crores. Though the learned counsel appearing for the other parties contended that the cheques cannot be taken to be proof of availability of funds and also the intention of the first and second defendants to purchase the properties and that therefore advertisements have to be issued for the sale of the property, I am of the view that before proceeding to offer the property for sale to third parties, an offer can be made to the family members themselves. As pointed out earlier, it was six brothers, who actually held 1,266 equity shares each, totaling to 7,596 shares in the company, who owned Udayam Theatre Complex. Five out of six brothers are now no more. The family members of those five brothers have inherited the shares held by the head of the respective families. Therefore, if any one of the members of the family is willing to make an offer, which is not below the offer now made by the second defendant, the property may not go out of the family. Therefore, the application is directed to be listed on 18.2.2011. On 18.2.2011, it is open to any of the members of the six branches of the family to come up with an offer either matching the offer now made by the second defendant or offering a higher amount than the present offer. But while making the said offer on 18.2.2011, the second defendant as well as the other offerors, should produce sufficient proof to show the availability of funds, so that the question of considering any of their offers could be taken up.Post on 18.2.2011.

Already A Member?