The Hindu : New Delhi News : Order appointing administrator to manage SUS Bank property upheld

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Dec 03, 2007
ePaper

New Delhi

New Delhi

Order appointing administrator to manage SUS Bank property upheld

Legal Correspondent

Supreme Court refuses to interfere with Madurai Bench order

Administrator to facilitate repayment of deposits
Petitioner claims that she was falsely implicated

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to interfere with the Madurai Bench order of the Madras High Court appointing an administrator to manage the properties of SUS Bank to facilitate repayment of deposits.

A Bench of Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice D.K. Jain dismissed a special leave petition filed by Saroja Thirumal challenging the High Court order dated September 15, 2005 while granting bail to her.

The prosecution case was that SUS Bank was started under the sole proprietorship of the petitioner’s husband Thirumal, who died in April 2005. Following his death, a rumour was spread that the company was facing problems and all investors started withdrawing funds. Criminal complaints were filed against her demanding repayment of deposits, as she was the wife of the sole proprietor. The sessions court while granting her bail asked her to deposit Rs. 50 lakh and furnish a bank guarantee. Against this order she moved the High Court, which imposed more stringent conditions and even appointed an administrator to manage the properties of the petitioner. The present appeal was directed against this order.

She contended that the bail conditions were incapable of performance and that she had no domain over the transactions of the business. She claimed that she had been falsely implicated due to her status as the wife of the sole proprietor. She contended that appointment of an administrator in a bail application was violative of her right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

On behalf of the respondents, the State of Tamil Nadu and others, it was submitted that the total liability of the husband of the petitioner was Rs. 5.5 crore and the valuation of the assets was Rs. 11.67 crore. They said the High Court had imposed such a condition, as several hundred depositors had been allegedly duped by her husband and that the High Court order did not call for any interference.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

New Delhi