Pappulal @ Hanuman S/o Parasram Jaat vs State of M.P.

The powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India of this Court are invoked to question the order dated 21.07.2016 passed by the Special Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) whereby the Special Court established under Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000 (for brevity "the 2000 Act) while dealing with an application under Section 8 of the 2000 Act preferred by the petitioner praying for release of the property of the petitioner from interim attachment has kept the said application pending for being decided along with MJC No.39/2011 awaiting adjudication before the Special Court. MJC No.39/2011 arises out of order of interim attachment passed by Competent Authority which is pending finalization before the Special Court in regard to the property claimed by petitioner to be of her ownership and not of the company/financial institution.

The bare facts, giving rise to the present case, are that on 01.09.2010 the petitioner entered the Samriddhi Jeewan Foods India Limited as a tenant in the accommodation belonging to the petitioner on tenancy lease of 11 months for which tenancy agreement was executed on 28.10.2010. On expiry of the said tenancy period, settlement deed dated 18.02.2013 was also executed. Against the said company, action under Section 4 of the 2000 Act was initiated attaching its property along with attachment of said tenanted accommodation in its possession. The competent authority, the Collector passed the ad interim WP.5511/2016 Smt. Kusum Agrawal Vs. State of M.P. & others order of attachment of the property in question on 20.06.2011 and forwarded the case to the Special Court for conducting proceedings under Section 8 of the 2000 Act for making the interim attachment absolute. During pendency of the proceedings under Section 8 before the Special Court, an application Annexure P-2 dated 19.08.2016 was moved by the petitioner praying for release of her property from attachment on the ground that the said company or its partner, promotor, director, manager or member has no interest over the said property which actually belongs to the petitioner.

In view of the above, it is evident that the application Annexure P-2 dated 19.08.2016 preferred by the petitioner under Section 8 of the 2000 Act was, in fact, an objection under Section 8(3) of the 2000 Act which is required to be dealt with by the Special Court along with response received to the show cause notices issued under Section 8(1) of the 2000 Act to invite objections from persons claiming interest over the attachment property. This objection and response to the show causes notices under the Statute are required to be investigated into regarding their genuineness by following the procedure established under CPC including adducing of evidence for establishing the interest claimed over the property of the person filing objection or response to the said show cause notice. Thereafter, the Special Court passes order under Section 8(6) of the 2000 Act either making the ad interim attachment absolute by rejecting the objection and response to the show cause notice or varies the said interim attachment by releasing a part of the property from attachment or by cancelling the ad interim order of attachment. The proviso to Section 8(6) of the WP.5511/2016 Smt. Kusum Agrawal Vs. State of M.P. & others 2000 Act circumscribes this power of release of property in part or in toto from ad interim attachment by providing that while doing so the Special Court shall ensure that the property that remains under attachment is sufficient to meet the requirement of repayment to the depositor of the company/ financial establishment.

The only enabling provision for release of property under attachment on furnishing of security which can be availed either by the financial establishment/company or any person whose property has been or is about to be attached is contained in Section 10 of the 2000 Act.

The Special Court by passing the impugned order has deferred hearing of this objection made by the petitioner under Section 8 of the 2000 Act to be dealt with along with MJC No.39/2011 which was received by the Special Court for confirming the interim attachment order passed by the Collector. Undoubtedly, the proceedings of making the interim attachment order absolute appear to be pending till passing of the impugned order and also on account of the restraint interim order passed by this Court on 19.08.2016.

In the given facts and circumstances where the petitioner failed to exercise remedy under Section 10 of the 2000 Act, the view taken by the Special Court by passing the impugned order cannot be found fault with especially in the limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Merely because another view is possible in the given facts and circumstances of the matter, cannot be sufficient for this Court to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

It cannot be said that the Special Court has exceeded its WP.5511/2016 Smt. Kusum Agrawal Vs. State of M.P. & others jurisdiction set by law.

This petition, accordingly, is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The Special Court is hereby directed to conclude proceedings in MJC No.39/2011 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today.

(ii) In case, the abovesaid proceedings in MJC No.39/2011 are not concluded within the prescribed time as above, then the petitioner shall be at liberty to take recourse to the remedy available to her under Section 10 of the 2000 Act.

No cost.