REV.APPL/90/2026 of The State Of Tamilnadu Vs P. Marutha Vinayagam on 25 September 2026

COMMON ORDER

In and by order dated 15.12.2025, I had disposed of CRP. No.6264 of 2025, permitting the revision petitioners to deposit Rs.1,70,24,000/- and upon such payment, the second respondent was directed to raise the order of attachment and liberty was given to the petitioners to get sale deed in their favour or in favour of their nominees, such sale deed to be executed by the respondents 3 and 4. The review has been filed to modify the above said order.

2. The Review Application is at the instance of the State of Tamil Nadu, Additional Chief Secretary to Government and the competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, Chennai.

3. I have heard Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi, learned Additional Government Pleader for the petitioners in Review Application 90 of 2026 and respondent in Cont.P. No.1448 of 2026, Mr.R.Vivekanandan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 in the Review Application No.90 of 2026 and petitioners in Cont.P. No.1448 of 2026, Mr.M.Krishnamoorthi, learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 and Mr.Srinivas Jayaprakash, learned counsel for third party depositors (Small Group of depositors) and Mr.Prasanna Nagarajan, learned counsel for the larger Group of depositors and Mr.K.Krishnan, learned counsel for M/s.Nathan and Associates, appearing for the impleaded 5th respondent/purchaser.

4. Pursuant to the order passed in the revision petition, the learned Additional Advocate General, Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, brought to my notice that proceedings were pending before the TNPID Court and without the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.14608 of 2021, dated 04.07.2022, being brought to the notice of this Court, the petitioners have attempted to purchase the property for a song. The learned Additional Advocate General would further state that the total defaulted amount is more than 8 crores and if the property is permitted to be sold to the revision petitioners for 1,70,24,000/-, it would result in gross injustice to a large body of depositors who have been waiting patiently for their claims to be satisfied, atleast on pro rata basis.

5. On 21.07.2026, after hearing the learned counsel and noticing that the State has an intending purchaser who is willing to pay Rs.4 crores, I had directed the 5th respondent to deposit the entire money representing the sale consideration with the review applicants to enable the revision petitioners 1 and

2 to be paid out their, 2.33 crores. This proposal was accepted by the revision petitioners as well. No objection was taken on the said date by either the respondents 3 and 4 or the larger body of the creditors', subsequently, by order dated 01.09.2026, the factum of the 5th respondent settling the claim of the revision petitioners was recorded and the excess amount lying with District Revenue Officer, were directed to be utilized for disbursement to chit subscribers to whom monies are admittedly due, on pro rata basis. On that day, the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4, viz., Chit Company and its Directors, placed an objection stating that the property would now fetch 5 and a half crores and that they are willing to bring a buyer for the said price.

6. However, learned Additional Government Pleader, Mrs.Yogalakshmi, stated that a sale certificate has already been issued in favour of the 5th respondent herein, who was directed to be impleaded in the review application on the said date. Today, it is brought to my notice that after settling the entire claim of the revision petitioners, a sale certificate has been issued in favour of the 5th respondent and therefore, it is no longer open to the Chit Company or the larger body of the creditors to contend that the property will fetch much more and therefore, it has to be brought for sale by way of public auction.

7. Firstly, I am unable to countenance the stand of the Chit Company. They were willing to sell away the property to purchasers through a transaction negotiated privately for a mere Rs.1,70,24,000/-, and the larger body of creditors even gave consent to the said sale, which was also brought to my notice when I disposed of the revision on 15.12.2025. Therefore, today it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents 3 and 4 or even the larger body of the Creditors to contend that the price now paid by the 5th respondent is very low.

8. The learned counsel for the smaller body of creditors, Mr.Srinivas Jayaprakash would state that the smaller body of creditors are willing to share the proceeds on pro rata basis and in fact, they were not even taken into confidence by the larger body of creditors and the respondents 3 and 4, when the sale was confirmed for Rs.1,70,24,000/- . He would therefore state that even the larger body of creditors are today benefited by more than double the amount for which they themselves were willing to sell the property for.

9. In such view of the matter and also taking into account the fact that the property has already been sold and the sale certificate has been issued to the 5th respondent, I am unable to countenance the arguments made by the counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 and the larger body of the creditors that today the property would fetch much more and therefore, the property has to be sold by way of public auction. Pendency of the matters before a Court is bound to result in some delay and for the mere asking, the goal post cannot be kept shifted every time, on oral assurances that the property would fetch a better price. In any event, as already stated the respondents 3 and 4 and the larger body of creditors having conceded to sell the property at even Rs.1,70,24,000/- , cannot be given an audience today that they are not satisfied with even Rs.4 crores. This Court therefore records the factum of the sale certificate having been issued to the 5th respondent and the excess amounts available with the review applicants shall be disbursed at pro rata basis to all the depositors/creditors without any unreasonable delay.

10. The review application is accordingly disposed of and Contempt Petition is closed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs. 25-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP

To

1. The Judge, Special Court under the TNPID Act, Chennai.

2. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Home.

3. The Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, Chennai District.

P.B.BALAJI, J. RKP Pre-delivery Order in Rev. Appln. No.90 of 2026 and CMP. No.18912 of 2026 and Cont.P. No.1448 of 2026 25-09-2026