Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, No. 37, Part II, Section 2 (37 II 2 v7)
The Government of Tamil Nadu published Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No. 37, Part II, Section 2 on 16 September 2015, including Home Department G.O. Ms. No. 583, G.O. Ms. No. 584 and G.O. Ms. No. 585, each dated 7 August 2015. These Home Department orders provisionally attach specified movable or immovable properties connected with three financial establishments accused of failing to return matured deposits, and transfer control of the properties to designated competent authorities.
What the Gazette covers
Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No. 37, Part II, Section 2 contains notifications or orders issued by Secretariat Departments for sections of the public. The material supplied includes Home Department property attachment orders under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997. It also lists Labour and Employment Department notifications, including employee exemption, revision of minimum wages, constitution of a wage committee and referral of industrial disputes to Labour Courts.
Property attachment orders
The Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu issued three ad-interim attachment orders dated 7 August 2015:
- G.O. Ms. No. 583 concerns Messers Ashok Farms & Copras, Erode District. Following complaints that matured deposits were not returned, the order attaches the movable properties listed in its schedule. These include two four wheelers and three motorcycles. Control is transferred to the Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore District.
- G.O. Ms. No. 584 concerns Messers Jenith Herbals, Namakkal District. It attaches scheduled movable properties standing in the names of the partners, including motorcycles, machinery, equipment, money refunded to the District Revenue Officer account and gold ornaments. Control is transferred to the Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore District.
- G.O. Ms. No. 585 concerns Messers SUS Bankers, Kanniyakumari District. It attaches scheduled immovable properties standing in the names of the partners and transfers control to the Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, Madurai District. The schedule identifies land with a house building at Padmanabhapuram-A Village and vacant land at Kumarapuram Village, both in Kalkulam Taluk, Kanniyakumari District.
Who may be affected
The Home Department attachment orders directly affect the named financial establishments, their partners or listed property owners, depositors seeking recovery, and anyone dealing with a scheduled vehicle, item, land or building. A property buyer or professional should compare identifying details, including owner names, village, survey number, extent, document number, vehicle registration, engine number and chassis number, with the relevant schedule.
Further action
The designated competent authorities are directed to follow the statutory procedure and prescribed formalities. The Special Public Prosecutor for the relevant Special Court is asked to assist the competent authority in filing the required application.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
Does the Gazette attach every property owned by these financial establishments?
No. The Home Department orders attach only the movable or immovable properties identified in their respective schedules.
Could G.O. Ms. No. 585 affect a land purchase in Kanniyakumari District?
Yes, if the proposed purchase matches a scheduled property connected with Messers SUS Bankers. The schedule identifies properties at Padmanabhapuram-A Village and Kumarapuram Village in Kalkulam Taluk.
Who controls the attached properties connected with Messers Ashok Farms & Copras and Messers Jenith Herbals?
Control is transferred to the Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore District.
Why were the properties attached?
The Government recorded complaints that the financial establishments had failed to return deposits after maturity and stated that the scheduled properties were alleged to have been acquired from deposits collected from depositors.
