Capt.Dr.Vrc Pandian v. The Chairman And Managing Director

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN and C.M.P(MD)No.15474 of 2025 Capt.Dr.VRC.Pandian, Proprietor of SVR Plastics, Shed No.4, Industrial Estate, Keela Nagachi, Uchippuli, Ramanathapuram District.

...Appellant/Petitioner Vs.

1.The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, Near SIDCO Electronic Complex, Thiru. Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

2.The Branch Manager (Estate Officer), Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, SIDCO Branch Office, Thondi Road, Sivagangai District.

3.The Branch Manager, The National Small Industries Corporation Limited, No.14, 1st Street, Harvey Nagar, Arasaradi, Madurai - 16.

1/8

4.The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Madurai.

...Respondent

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.10574 of 2014 dated 31.10.2023 on the file of this Court.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Saravana Kumar For Respondents : Mr.T.Sakthi Kumaran Standing Counsel (for R2) : Mr.K.Prathap Sudarsan for Mr.J.Prabhu (for R3) : Mr.C.Muthu Saravanan Public Prosecutor for CBI (for R4)

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.) The appellant is the writ petitioner in the Writ Petition. W.P(MD)No.10574 of 2014 had been filed challenging an order dated 30.05.2014 passed by the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (in short 'SIDCO'). 2.The appellant had been allotted a shed admeasuring 2000 square feet ('shed') for operating a firm engaged in the manufacture of 2/8

plastics. The consideration had been fixed at Rs.3,25,000/- and the appellant was directed to pay a margin amount of 10% on or before 11.11.2000. The balance amount of Rs.2,92,500/- was directed to be paid in eight equal monthly installments, with interest at the rate of 17%. In the event of default, penal interest was also to be imposed. 3.The appellant paid the margin amount of 10% and had been handed over possession of the shed. However, there were defaults in payment of the balance. The allotment had been cancelled by order dated 19.11.2003. Thereafter, the appellant paid a sum of Rs.1,40,920/- in 2004.

4.Since the sale deed had not executed by SIDCO, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.3582 of 2010 that was disposed, directing the respondents to consider his case. The order impugned in the Writ Petition had, thus came to be passed as a consequence, directing the appellant to remit the balance amount of Rs. 11,25,372/- as a measure of one time settlement. Challenging the same, a Writ Petition had been filed in 2014 which had ultimately been dismissed in 2023.

3/8

5.SIDCO had filed a counter. Their stand, as projected by Mr.T.Sakthi Kumaran, learned standing counsel who appears on behalf of R2 before us, was that the appellant was in arrears of both principal as well as interest and notwithstanding the same, was holding on the possession of the shed as well.

6.Thus according to SIDCO, the appellant was in arrears of principal, interest and penal interest. Despite their best efforts they had been unable to recover possession of the shed from the appellant as he would intimidate them. It is only with great difficulty that possession was recovered on 24.04.2023.

7.The learned Judge records in the impugned order that the appellant had projected as though he had been practicing as an Advocate with Enrollment No.466 of 2014 before the Supreme Court of India, High Court at Chandigarh, City Civil Court, Magistrate Courts and Small Causes Court at Madras. However, in the course of hearing before the writ Court, the appellant had produced a notification dated 19.09.2021 on his mobile phone claiming to be a sitting Additional Judge of the Punjab 4/8

and Haryana High Court.

8.In those circumstances, the writ Court had directed the conduct of an enquiry, suo motu impleading the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Madurai, as a party in that Writ Petition. The CBI was directed to register a case and conduct an investigation and the mobile phone which contained the notification as above had also been seized and handed over to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.

9.Mr.C.Muthu Saravanan, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation, confirms that a complaint had been filed on 29.05.2024 and is under investigation. 10.Mr.S.Saravana Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that he has no instructions and that he had been unable to contact the appellant. However, he would submit that the appellant should be granted liberty to challenge order dated 24.04.2023, in terms of which the respondents claim to have taken possession of the shed. 11.We have considered the detailed submissions advanced by the parties.

5/8

12.Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the arrears of principal and interest. In such circumstances, there is no justification whatsoever for the appellant to continue to hold possession of the shed from 2014 onwards. The repossession of the shed on 24.04.2023 is entirely justified.

13.That apart, as far as the various claims of the appellant including that he is a sitting Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, they are the subject matter of enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation. We direct the CBI to conduct the enquiry as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

14.In light of the admitted defaults in payment, we find nothing untoward in the order of the writ Court and hence confirm the same. 15.This Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

[A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,] 22.09.2025 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes 6/8

ps To 1.The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, Near SIDCO Electronic Complex, Thiru. Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

2.The Branch Manager (Estate Officer), Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, SIDCO Branch Office, Thondi Road, Sivagangai District.

3.The Branch Manager, The National Small Industries Corporation Limited, No.14, 1st Street, Harvey Nagar, Arasaradi, Madurai - 16.

4.The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Madurai.

7/8

DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.

AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

ps 22.09.2025 8/8