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



M/s. Sippriya Oil Mills repd by its Proprietor Mr. John Peter v/s The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd repd by its branch mgr 46


Company & Directors' Information:- MGR INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1997PTC088014

Company & Directors' Information:- N K OIL MILLS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15201GJ1994PTC022669

Company & Directors' Information:- B P OIL MILLS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15142UP1965PLC003232

Company & Directors' Information:- K P L OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15142KL1983PTC003685

Company & Directors' Information:- N K B OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15142KL1999PTC013095

Company & Directors' Information:- K K K OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15142KL2000PTC013621

Company & Directors' Information:- S N OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15142HR1986PTC025702

Company & Directors' Information:- G. B. OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15326HR1985PTC019817

Company & Directors' Information:- R. OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15141DL1992PTC047883

Company & Directors' Information:- J K OIL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15143UP1955PLC002570

Company & Directors' Information:- M.R. OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15142UP1989PTC010812

Company & Directors' Information:- N N OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15147MH1999PTC117989

Company & Directors' Information:- J & T OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15141KL2006PTC019754

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND R OIL MILLS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15315CH1994PTC014265

    W.P.No.1189 of 2001

    Decided On, 07 August 2008

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN

    For the Petitioner : V. Raghavachari, Advocate. For the Respondent: L.N. Praghasham, A.V. Bharathi, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in proceedings No.TIIC/KKD/LAO-I/2000-01 and dated 9.1.2001 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and to further direct the respondent herein to consider the proposal of the petitioner for waiver dated 27.3.2000.)


Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.


2. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that a loan for a sum of Rs.5,37,900/- had been taken from the respondent in the month of January, 1994, for commencing an oil mill at Kooturavupatti village in Sivaganga Taluk. However, after the construction of the factory and the installation of the machineries, there was a glut in the market due to the availability of palm oil at a very low price. In spite of the petitioner mill suffering due to various reasons, a sum of nearly Rs.3,00,000/- was deposited with the respondent. However, without considering the totality of the circumstances, the respondent had taken possession of the factory, on 27.3.1998, without following the procedure known to law. When the respondent brought the property for auction, there were no bidders. Thereafter, the petitioner had offered to deposit Rs.1/4th of the sum claimed by the respondent and had also undertaken to pay the balance subject to the respondent waiving the interest. Since the respondent had accepted the offer, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.3,25,000/-, on 27.3.2000 and the possession of the factory had also been taken. In spite of the deposit being made, the respondent had issued the impugned notice, dated 9.1.2001, without following the due procedures established by law. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the reliefs as stated therein.


3. At the stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that the entire amount due from the petitioner had been paid to the respondent and that the respondent had returned the original documents belonging to the petitioner, based on which the loan had been granted.


4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.


5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels a

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ppearing for the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands closed. Consequently, connected W.M.P.No.1642 of 2001, M.P.Nos.18900 and 18901 of 2006 are closed. No costs.
O R