Quotes Gems - Determination

 







"We will either find a way, or make one!"
 

 Hannibal  
247–183 or 182 BC 
 He is  one of the greatest military commanders in history.  

Cases pile up as debt tribunal goes headless

 


Rahul Devulapalli, TNN Mar 10, 2012, 02.44AM IST 

HYDERABAD: The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), a significant arm of the Union ministry of finance which deals with cases related to the nationalized banks, has almost been reduced to a defunct entity in the city thanks to the absence of a regular Presiding Officer (PO).

Having had no permanent presiding officers for almost two years now, the DRT has more than 2,700 cases pending with it which were filed by either banks or their customers. It is estimated that at least Rs 1,000 crore in recoveries has been held up due to the delay in clearing these cases.

The presiding officer is generally a judge of the rank of a district and sessions judge and is the sole judicial authority to hear and pass orders. But, after PO D Gopal Krishna was suspended in April 2010, his chair has yet to get a permanent occupant. The PO of Mumbai DRT-1, A Vijay Kumar, is the acting PO of the Hyderabad tribunal. Since the acting PO visits Hyderabad no more than a couple of times in a month, the tribunal functions only on those days.

The tribunal deals with cases related to banks from the Rayalaseema and Telangana regions but has had only one recovery officer in the last four months instead of the stipulated two officers.

But now, Ramu Itikyal, a social activist and para legal volunteer with AP State Legal Service Authority, is planning to submit a memorandum to the Union finance ministry drawing its attention to the current crisis of personnel.

"It is public money which is involved in these recovery cases. The tribunal should work efficiently to recover debt money as soon as possible," he said, adding that a permanent PO should be immediately appointed and other vacant posts be filled.

He said that citizens who have approached the tribunal seeking more time for repayment of loans stand to be especially inconvenienced by the snail's pace of functioning.

"Case disposal rate is very slow. A citizen who has approached the tribunal for more time to repay the loan faces a long wait in getting the order. Interest, however, would be charged on his loan for that duration. And, if the decision goes against him, he has to pay an extra sum, too, which is very unfair."

TV Bhaskar, RTI activist and director of the SIRI voluntary organization, has even filed an RTI appeal seeking complete details of the cases and orders heard in the recent past. "The cases should be disposed of within a month; then only can proper justice be said to have been done. But here it takes a long time for cases to even be heard," Bhaskar said.

Bhaskar also spoke of malpractices in the matter of loan settlements effected by the tribunal.

"There are increasing cases of partial recovery of huge loans. That is due to some corrupt bank officials who are hand in glove with some customers who do not want to repay the complete loan amount."

A senior official, however, clarified that the tribunal was functioning smoothly.

"The last permanent PO is still under suspension; unless he is removed another cannot be appointed in his place. The acting PO from Mumbai DRT-1 tries to clear as many cases as possible whenever he is here," he said.

Asset Reconstruction Companies still in a state of drift due to fear among banks and policy paralysis

 
13 MAR, 2012, 05.54AM IST, RISHI SHAH & DHEERAJ TIWARI,ET BUREAU  

The business of asset reconstruction companies, which specialise in settling bad loans of the financial sector, should pick up when an economy feels pain. Yet, even as the Indian economy decelerates to its slowest in three years and bad loans of banks hit an all-time high, ARCs remain in a state of drift, subdued by fear among banks and a loose policy framework.

The pace of new bad loans with banks has always exceeded the loans transferred by them to ARCs for disposal. For example, between March 2009 and March 2010, even as bad loans with banks increased by Rs 15,774 crore, transfers to ARCs trailed at Rs 10,675 crore, according to data from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). This differential is likely to increase as, between March 2010 and September 2011, bad loans of banks are up 40%. While exact numbers are not available, anecdotal evidence suggests flows to ARCs is not keeping pace.

"There is no business coming our way," says a senior official with a leading reconstruction company. According to the latest financial report of State Bank of India (SBI), India's largest bank, it has Rs 40,000 crore of bad loans. Yet, in 2009-10 and 2010-11, it passed on just six bad loans with a combined book value of Rs 40 crore to ARCs.

"In a continually rising NPA scenario, even large banks such as SBI and IDBI Bank sell three and two NPAs, respectively, in a year, that too year after year," adds Rajiv Ranjan, president & CEO of Reliance ARC. "What can you guess about business coming the way of ARCs?" Business is not picking up for two reasons: fear among bank officials and a weak policy framework.

FEAR OF ACTION 

Bank officials are hesitant to sell bad loans. "Banking is dominated by the public sector, which is reluctant to pawn off assets to other management firms as they fear a loss of face," says the head of a PSU bank, not wanting to be identified. When a loan is transferred, it goes off the bank's books. But rather than see it as a way to clean the balance sheet, along with a possibility of recovering something from it, many bank officials fear this might be perceived as an admittance of failure to recover the loan.

They also fear vigilance inquiries. "The problem in India is that everybody wants to complain," says MS Verma, chairman of International Asset Reconstruction Company (IARC), an ARC promoted by HDFC Bank and Tata Capital. "Bankers are afraid that even in a fair process, questions might be asked as to why the NPAs had to be sold when recovery was possible." 

Typically, every bank has a chief vigilance officer (CVO) looking into such complaints. Beyond the bank's CVO, if required, even the Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) can take up such inquiries. In fact, when an ED is to be promoted to CMD, CVC clearance is needed, and inquiries over transfers of bad loan to ARCs can lead to delays in appointments.

Given all this, not doing anything is seen as a safer option. "In the public sector, usually, there is accountability only for doing, but none for not doing," says a senior advocate who declined to be named as he represents banks in courts. 

"For existing bad loans, all he has to do is create a record that he tried to recover it in every possible way." The numbers of Arcil, India's largest ARC, bear that out. Arcil has acquired bad loans with a principal value of Rs 24,000 crore. Of this, Rs 9,000 crore came from ICICI Bank, a private bank, which is 50% more than what SBI gave. Both banks, along with PNB and IDBI Bank, are copromoters of Arcil.

WEAK POLICY FRAMEWORK 

According to the RBI, as of June 2011, India had 13 operational ARCs, holding assets with a combined book value of about Rs 74,000 crore. But they are not endowed with capital. In developed markets, well-capitalised ARCs buy loans outright.

In India, however, ARCs, pay a bank about 5% of the price of the loan agreed on. For the rest, ARCs issue security receipts (SRs), which is a promise to pay the bank a certain share of the sale value at the time of selling the bad loan. When bad loans have been transferred, both banks and ARCs have bickered over the pricediscovery mechanism and the auction process.

Indian banks, typically, offer those loans to ARCs they have been unable to realise for five years or more, and so are often mired in legalities. Banks sell bad loans through an auction, for which they fix a base price. Neeta Mukerji of Arcil says the base price fixed by banks is random and has no relation to the asset's residual value.

"An ARC's estimate of recovery expected, time frame, cost and funding cost is quite different from that of banks," says Mukerji, officiating CEO of Arcil. Officials of four ARCs that ET spoke to say the process favours banks, with one even labelling the auction "a sham". "They only want to sell the worthless, age-old NPAs, where they have almost exhausted recovery possibilities," says an official of one of those ARCs, not wanting to be named. "And they want us to pay a substantial price."

Verma of IARC says some banks conduct auctions only to find the "right price" for themselves to further use as a bargaining tool with defaulters. "Then, they go to the borrower and scare him by saying that ARCs will use tougher means and try to settle it for a higher price," he adds. Another head of a smaller ARC, speaking on the condition of anonymity, says that during due diligence, one bank refuses to show any papers or even the asset to ARC officials, even though some might have legal claims on them.

A government panel, with representation from industry, is currently looking at regulatory, legal and accounting issues plaguing ARCs in India. These include a standard format for documentation, ARCs going public to raise more capital and reduction in bottlenecks in the functioning of debt recovery tribunals (DRTs), which is the stage preceding ARCs.

A quick resolution will benefit all stakeholders, says a finance ministry official who is part of the panel but did not want to be identified. "Experience suggests that NPAs, like a cube of ice, lose value over time. And rather fast," he says. 

Robbing Peter to pay Paul, PNB style

 

Raj Kumar, TNN Mar 11, 2012, 04.47AM IST 

PATNA: One has heard of courts restraining private banks from using force to save debts from turning bad. Here's an instance of a public sector bank auctioning the property of three people for recovering a loan which they neither took nor guaranteed.

Meet Anita Singh (47), wife of Dwijendra Kumar who works in the state cooperative department at Muzaffarpur. 

The couple has been running from pillar to post since February 16 this year, the day they came to know their only house at Adarsh Colony at Muzaffarpur had been auctioned by Punjab National Bank (PNB) a day earlier to recover a loan of Rs 5 lakh which their neighbour, Ajay Sharma, had taken from PNB's Bela branch in Muzaffarpur in 1999.

As Ajay of Jai Mata Di Fabrics went missing along with his family members from their house, the bank issued notices to the guarantors, including one Aniruddh Prasad of East Champaran district.

In his reply to the bank's legal notice, Prasad informed the bank that in November 2003, he sold his 2-kattha land - 'khata' number 120, 'khesra' number 568 - in Ajay's neighbourhood to one Kusum Devi in 1981 (almost two decades before Ajay took the loan) and that he never signed any document related to any loan from any bank to Ajay.

According to documents available with TOI, Kusum sold the land in pieces to Poonam Jha, Ram Bahadur Thakur and Anita Singh in 1997. While Singhs and Thakurs constructed houses, Jha sold her land to one Radha Rani in 2004.

All this could have been known had the PNB, in response to Prasad's reply to its notice, bothered to check the land records in the Musahari circle office. Instead, the PNB moved the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) where it submitted the allegedly fake land documents on the basis of which the DRT, in August 2007, passed the decree in favour of PNB. None of the current owners of the plot was made a party; nor were they even intimated about the hearings.

Armed with the decree, PNB auctioned Ajay's house as well as the three adjacent plots for Rs 47 lakh on February 15.

A horrified Anita Singh has since visited the PNB's branch office, regional office and circle office in Muzaffarpur. 

All she got was advice to meet Saba Ahmad, PNB's official at its Rajapul branch in Patna. Her husband went rushing to Ahmad who redirected him to visit DRT. 

DRT officials refused to acknowledge the Singhs as a "party" and it was only after quite a scene that they were asked to hire a lawyer to plead their case.

But why did the then bank manager sanction the loan against allegedly fake documents? 

What action will the PNB bosses take against him? 

Why did the then PNB authorities ignore Prasad's reply to their legal notice? 

Who will compensate and what, for the harassment caused to the Singhs and others?

PNB's chief manager Naresh Batra, who also looks after the bank's public relations, refrained from replying to these questions.

 "But there's a proper forum -- Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal - from where victims in such cases can seek remedy," he told TOI over phone on Saturday evening.

Punjab National Bank auctions wrong house to recover loan

 

Raj Kumar, TNN Mar 12, 2012, 04.08AM IST 

PATNA: Anita Singh, 47, and her husband Dwijendra Kumar have been chasing authorities since February 16. 

That day they came to know that their only house at Adarsh Colony in Muzaffarpur had been auctioned by Punjab National Bank (PNB) to recover a loan of Rs 5 lakh which their neighbour, Ajay Sharma, had taken from PNB's Bela branch in Muzaffarpur in 1999.

Ajay of Jai Mata Di Fabrics went missing along with his family and the bank issued notices to the guarantors, including Aniruddh Prasad of East Champaran.

In his reply, Prasad informed the bank that in November 2003 he sold his land in Ajay's neighbourhood to Kusum Devi in 1981 and that he never signed any document related to any loan to Ajay. 

According to documents available with TOI, Kusum sold the land in pieces to Poonam Jha, Ram Bahadur Thakur and Anita Singh in 1997. While the Singhs and Thakurs constructed houses, Jha sold her land to one Radha Rani in 2004.

All this could have been known had the PNB, in response to Prasad's reply, bothered to check the land records in the Musahari circle office. 

Instead, the PNB moved the Debts Recovery Tribunal where it submitted the allegedly fake land documents on the basis of which the DRT, in August 2007, passed the decree in favour of PNB. Armed with the decree, the PNB auctioned Ajay's house as well as the three adjacent plots for Rs 47 lakh on February 15.

 Anita has since visited the bank's branch, regional and circle offices in Muzaffarpur. She got the advice to meet Saba Ahmad, PNB's official at its Rajapul branch in Patna.

Her husband went to Ahmad who redirected him to visit DRT.

 DRT officials refused to acknowledge the Singhs as a "party" and they were asked to hire a lawyer.

M.S.Arunkumar V/S SBI

M.A:116/2011 

1.         This appeal impugns the order dated 04.03.2011 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT Madurai in IA No.299/2010 in IA No.1031/2009 in TA No.57/209.

2.         The case of the appellant may be stated as follows:

The appellant is the 8^th defendant in TA No.57/2009 filed by the first respondent bank for the recovery of a sum of Rs.33,01,573.31.  The said TA was allowed ex-parte on 22.11.2007 by DRT Coimbatore and DRC No.90/2008 came to be issued. 

 It is stated by the appellant that when he came to know about the exparte decree passed against him he filed IA No.1031/2009 to condone the delay of 251 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree, IA No.1032/2009 to set aside the exparte decree and IA No.1033/2009 for a stay of all proceedings under the DRC till the disposal of the above three IAs.  

It is stated in view of the establishment of DRT Madurai the Recovery Proceedings pertaining to the above case stood transferred to DRT Madurai and the Recovery Officer, DRT Madurai also brought the property for sale. 

 It is stated that this being so the appellant filed W.P. No.711/2009 on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) and the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to dispose the same on 25.3.2009 with a direction issued to the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakhs with the Recovery Officer within three days from the date of the order and also was pleased to pass orders staying the confirmation of sale till disposal of the IAs by the DRT. 

 It is stated that subsequently the IAs were taken up by DRT Madurai and the respondent bank also filed its counter.  It is averred that the appellant was in touch with the Advocate in Coimbatore who in turn was briefing the Advocate atMadurai and that due to the communication gap the Advocate atMadurai reported “no instructions” and the three IAs were dismissed for non prosecution.  

It is stated that the said fact came to the notice of the appellant when he received a notice from the Recovery Officer requiring him to show cause as to why the sale should not be confirmed and the sale certificate issued.  It is stated that thereafter the appellant contacted the Advocate at Madurai and filed the IAs for the restoration of the dismissed IAs. 

 It is stated that the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT Madurai by his order dated 4.3.2011 has dismissed IA No.299/2010 filed for restoration of IA No.1031/2009 which IA was filed for the condonation of the delay of 251 days in filing the IA to set aside the exparte decree.  It is stated that the Ld Presiding Officer has dismissed the IA without giving any opportunity to the appellant to contest the case and prayed that the appeal be allowed.

3.         The appellant filed the list of dates and events and the same forms part of the record.  The appellant relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:

(i)                  Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani and others Vs. Ramchand Issardas Sadarangani and Another: 1993 Supp (3) SCC 256.

(ii)                Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 2.12.1997 made in Malkiat Singh and Another Vs. Joginder Singh and others.

4.         The first respondent filed written objections to the appeal and the written arguments and the same form part of the records.  The first respondent relied upon the following judgments in support of its contentions:

           

(i)                  Indian Bank Vs. ABS Marine Products (P) Ltd:(2006) 5 SCC 72.

(ii)                Mahabir Singh Vs. Subhash and others: (2008) 1 SCC 358.

(iii)               Sunil Poddar and Others Vs. Union Bank of India(2008) 2 SCC 326.

5.         The 2^nd respondent filed his written submissions and relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:

(i)                  Subbulakshmi Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and others: 2010 (5) CTC 786.

(ii)                Sankaralingam and Another Vs. V. Rahuraman 2002 (3) CTC 13.

(iii)               Union Bank of India,Coimbatore Vs. K.R. Jewellers & Ors. II(2009) BC 474 (DB).

(iv)              Sunil Poddar & Ors. Vs. Union Bank of India: 2008(2) CTC 686.

(v)                Cancer Care Trust Research Foundation Vs. Bank of Barod and Others: III (2007) BC 564.

(vi)              Adhimoolam and Others Vs. Indian Bank Chennai and others: (2008) 6 MLJ 1155.

(vii)             Subhash Kathuria Vs. Deve Sugars Limited and 02 others: (2009) 4 MLJ 83.

(viii)           Janatha Textiles & Others Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and Another: 2009 (2) LW 108.

(ix)              Jayan vs. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.: IV(2009) BC 635.

6.         Heard the Ld. Counsel.

7.         A reading of the affidavit of the petitioner filed in support of IA No.299/2010 before the Tribunal below reveals that the petitioner has stated in paragraph 5 of the said affidavit that due to business affairs he was out of the State of Tamilnadu from 25.1.2010 to 15.2.2010 and that he had lost his mobile phone and hence his counsel could not contact him and get instructions to get alongwith the enquiry on 5.2.2010 and that therefore his counsel reported “no instructions” on 5.2.2010 and the Tribunal below dismissed all the applications for default on 5.2.2010. 

8.         The loss of the mobile phone, the inability of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant to contact the appellant on account of the loss of mobile phone of the appellant cannot at any rate be stated as reasons for the Ld. Counsel for the appellant for reporting no instructions as it is common knowledge that a client can always contact the Advocate at any time and from any place in case the Advocate was not in a position to contact his client. 

 The Ld. Presiding Officer has considered all the events that had taken place right from 27.9.2007 i.e., the date on which the petitioner was initially set ex-parte in the TA and has properly analyzed the same in his order and has also arrived at the correct conclusion that the affidavit filed in support of the appellant’s case does not support the case of the appellant and has correctly dismissed IA-299/2010 and therefore this tribunal is driven to conclude that the order of the Ld. Presiding Officer warrants no interference and accordingly the order of the Ld. Presiding Officer is confirmed.

9.         In the result the appeal is dismissed. 

IA 409/2011 (Stay):  MA is dismissed today.  Hence this IA is also dismissed.

This judgement  was delivered on 14 th Mar 2012 by the Honble Chair Person of DRAT Chennai 

M.B.Basavaraju V/S Indian Bank & anr

R.A(S.A):106/2011

R1 is represented by Ld. Counsel Shri Balasubramaniam of M/s Aiyar & Dolia. R2 viz. Shri V. Vidhyasagar is already called absent.   Ld. Counsel Shri Venkatesh R. Bhagat appears on behalf of R3.

Ld. Counsel Shri R.Y. Achar appearing on behalf of the appellant took this Tribunal through the order of the Ld. Presiding officer, DRT, Bangalore and stated that the Ld. Presiding officer has not considered the circumstances surrounding the case and that the Ld. Presiding Officer has also not considered the fact that the appellant is a bonafide purchaser of the secured asset for valuable consideration and that the Ld. Presiding officer ought to have looked into these facts before he proceeded to dismiss  ASA No.59/08.  The Ld. Counsel further stated that the Ld. Presiding Officer has erred in not looking into the agreement of sale and the subsequent sale deed and that he has also failed to appreciate the submissions made about these documents during the course of arguments and that these documents if they had been properly considered would have revealed the fact that the Authorized officer could not have proceeded against the appellant’s property.  He further stated  that had the Ld. Presiding officer considered the facts of the case in the proper perspective he would not have proceeded to dismiss the ASA filed by the appellant.

Ld. Counsel Shri Balasubramaniam appearing on behalf of R1 bank stated that nowhere in the application filed in the ASA No.59/08 the appellant has averred any contravention of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the rules framed there under and that in as much as there are no pleadings with respect to the contravention of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act the Ld. Presiding officer has rightly proceeded to dismiss the ASA as he has found that there are no contraventions in the action taken by the Authorised officer.  Ld. Counsel stated that the order of the Ld. Presiding Officer is proper, valid and correct and that this appeal should be dismissed with costs.

Ld. Counsel Shri Venkatesh R. Bhagat appearing on behalf of the auction purchaser i.e. R3 herein stated that the order of the Ld. Presiding officer is proper and that he has rightly negatived  the claims of the appellant made before the Tribunal below by arriving at  a correct decision that the Authorised Officer has not contravened  any of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.  He further stated that in view of fact that no infirmities can be countenanced in the order of the Ld. Presiding officer this Tribunal should confirm the order of the Ld. Presiding officer and dismiss the appeal with costs.

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, R1 and R3.

It is seen that the appellant has not made averments with respect to any contravention of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act in the action taken by the Authorized officer and as no contravention has been complained of in the ASA this Tribunal is driven to conclude that the order of the Ld. Presiding officer has considered what is required to be considered by him under Sec.17 of the SARFAESI Act properly and further driven to hold that the appellant has not made out a case in the appeal and proceed to hold that the order of the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT, Bangalore is proper and further hold that this appeal warrants only a dismissal. Accordingly this RA(SA) is dismissed.

IA 130/09 (stay); RA(SA) is dismissed today. Hence this IA is also dismissed.

IA 1528/10 (stay);  RA(SA) is dismissed today. Hence this IA is also dismissed.

This judgement  was delivered on 14 th Mar 2012 by the Honble Chair Person of DRAT Chennai

Some thoughts around the Madras High Court

 

HIS LORDSHIP: The statues on the campus have many a tale behind them.

 Pictured here is the one of Sir V. Bhashyam Iyengar,

first Indian Advocate-General. Photo: V. Ganesan 

The Hindu

K. Chandru, Judge of the Madras High Court,

 takes a look at some of its early chronicles.

 

Chennai — 600 104. This is the pin code allotted by the Department of Posts to the zone occupied by the Madras High Court. Any such “zone” has to have its boundaries. In our land, if there is a boundary, it has its own boundary deity. In the villages, this deity is called the sentinel goddess.

The High Court campus also has two sentinel deities. One, a statue of Rajaji in the north-east; the other, a statue of T. Prakasamgaru in the south-west. The two roads stretching northward from these two statues constitute the boundaries of the High Court. One is Prakasam Road (formerly Broadway), and the other is Rajaji Road (the old North Beach Road).

 

What is the link between these two eminent leaders enshrined as statues, and a campus reputed to house the largest number of courts in Asia (from the ‘small causes courts' to the High Court)?

Rajaji

Born on December 10, 1878, Rajaji after completing his schooling and undergraduate studies, did his Law course at the Madras Law College. He was Chairman of the Salem Municipality and also had a flourishing legal practice there. However, in the interest of his children's education, he landed in Madras with bag and baggage in March 1919. He had planned to practise at the High Court. But the fate of the nation changed that course. Gandhiji issued the call for a ‘non-cooperation movement' against the colonial government. Heeding this call, Rajaji plunged into the movement, not even bothering to unpack the boxes containing legal tomes. Soon enough, he expressed opposition to the visit of the Prince of Wales and was imprisoned.

A person who had the potential to become the foremost legal luminary in India, spent years in the darkness of prison. But history adorned him differently. Law's loss became the legislature's gain.

The Constitution of India came into force on January 26, 1950. It was Rajaji's privilege, as the first Indian Governor-General, to anoint Dr. Rajendra Prasad as the first President of India. What an honour!

Prakasamgaru

The life of the south-western sentinel deity, Prakasamgaru, had been differently moulded. He studied in England and became a barrister. He registered himself at the Madras High Court, which had been denying opportunities to Indian lawyers, and achieved eminence in his profession. His reputation as a lawyer, and his professional income, were both legendary. He too responded to Mahatma Gandhi's clarion call, renounced his lucrative legal practice and threw himself into the freedom movement. He never again entered the High Court precincts. But, he came to be hailed as the Lion of Andhra (Andhra Kesari). It was said that a day before his arrest, he returned a fee of Rs.1 lakh to his client and plunged himself into direct political action. Rs.1 lakh was a hefty sum 90 years ago.

Both these leaders had renounced their legal profession in response to Gandhiji's call for non-cooperation. There were also other similarities. Rajaji became the Premier of the Madras Presidency in 1937, and Prakasamgaru in 1946. In 1952, Rajaji took over as the Chief Minister of the State of Madras (now Tamil Nadu). Prakasamgaru assumed responsibilities as the Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh in 1953.

The Lion of Andhra launched an English journal; Rajaji extended his support to this venture, naming it Swarajya. Later Rajaji himself took charge of publishing it. It is noteworthy that instead of pleading as lawyers before judges, they played roles in the very appointment of High Court judges. Rajaji played a key role in ensuring that Madras was retained as the capital of the State that is today Tamil Nadu. Thanks to his efforts, the Madras High Court is still with Tamil Nadu.

 

Having failed to make Madras City a part of Andhra, Prakasamgaru formed the State of Andhra and established a new Andhra High Court at Guntur in 1953, incorporating the Andhra districts which had until then been under the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court.

Is it any cause for wonder that these two stalwarts stand guard today as the sentinel deities of the Madras High Court?

The ‘SMS Emden'

A Tamil film titled Emden's Son was produced, and the title was ‘Tamilised' asEm Magan (Our Son) and released, in order to derive the tax benefits that a “Tamil” title would bring. The film producer offered the following clarification on the name: “SMS Emden” was a German warship that had hurled a bomb near the Madras Port during the First World War. The bomb splintered and landed near the High Court on September 22, 1914. A memorial tablet was installed at that site. We can still see that tablet some 10 metres behind the Rajaji statue.

There is a ‘Karjili” ditty in Tamil on the arrival of the “Emden” and the hurling of the bomb. Here is an excerpt:

“Emden the German cruiser

On South-east Madras shore

….………….

To damage Fort and Light house too

Hurl they did some bombs

….. ………….

With elation evident

Declared a British Worthy

Rolled three bombs

Near High Court

No damage, ha, no damage.”

The ditty was published in 1914 by Vijayapuram Na.Sabhapati Pillai at the Mannarkudi Bharat Press.

 

The “Emden,” which had caused consternation in Madras, has since become a part of Tamil folklore. But the film producer, eager for a tax privilege, made a mess of that name.

Not many know that the engineer of that ship was a Tamil: his name was Shenbagaraman. An association in his name still honours his memory, offering floral tributes at the tablet outside the High Court premises each year.

The unique lighthouse

In fact, the “Emden's” target was not the High Court, but the lighthouse that stood majestically next to it. How at all did the lighthouse get located in the High Court complex? That is an interesting story.

During the early 19th century, the vast area of land west of Fort St. George held a fascination for the British. That was the buffer zone between the Black Town and the fort — today's George Town at G.T. Till 1762, the Chenna Kesavapperumal temple and the Chenna Malleeswarar temple flourished in that area. Suddenly a fire destroyed these temples. Immediately, the colonial government took over that land and provided funds and land near the Flower Bazaar to construct the temples anew. Till this day, no one knows if that fire was indeed an accident or an engineered one. A new lighthouse was constructed on the land where the temples stood earlier. That lighthouse functioned from 1838 to 1844. Firewood was lit at the top of the structure to provide light. That lighthouse still exists in the High Court complex. It is under the watch of the Department of Archaeology, as a protected monument.

This lighthouse was only 125 feet in height. So the British government decided to build a new, taller lighthouse. In that vast area of land, the foundation was laid for a new (High Court) building.

Based on a proclamation by Queen Victoria, the Madras High Court, which was created in 1862, started functioning in the old Collector's office on Rajaji Salai (the present Singaravelar Mansion). A new High Court building was constructed at a cost of Rs.12 lakh and inaugurated on July 12, 1892. At the top of the main tower of the building (175 feet high), a new lighthouse was constructed. It was then the tallest structure in Madras. Till the 1970s, the public was allowed to climb up the lighthouse. This has been stopped over the past 35 years. A new lighthouse has been put up near the Gandhi statue on the Marina.

The lighthouse was not only guiding sailors in distress on the high seas, but was also serving as a beacon for legal clients in turmoil. This is unique to the Madras High Court. Two such buildings do not coexist in the same complex in any other State in India.

First Advocate-General

See the lighthouse and go to the northern side of the High Court (that is, the Subhas Chandra Bose Road: formerly China Bazaar), and you can see the statue of V. Bhashyam Iyengar. It is planted on a lofty pedestal. Who is this person, you might ask. He was the first Indian Advocate-General. A very eminent jurist, he became Advocate-General in 1897, and served as a judge in the Madras High Court from 1901 to 1904. While many were amazed at his independent attitude, the white judges of that period refused to allow his statue to be installed in the court premises. But thanks to the relentless efforts of lawyers, a statue was eventually installed in 1927. He was denied a judgeship for long due to his fearlessly independent attitude and was granted the judgeship when he had less than two years of tenure left.

The white judges who had refused to countenance the proposal, were later obliged to have a darshan of this statue on a daily basis. Every time they entered the court through the southern gate, they could not do so without seeing Bhashyam Iyengar standing majestically on a pedestal.

It is indeed a cruel irony that the passage between the southern and northern wings of the court has been taken over for the use of administrative offices, and turned into record rooms.

A High Court judge

Those who proceed from the Fort rail station to the Island Grounds should necessarily pass by an important bridge — Sir T. Muthuswami Iyer Bridge. Who was he? Born into a poor family, he read his lessons under a street lamp. Eventually he held many important positions and became a Judge of the Madras High Court in 1878. The first Indian to become a High Court Judge: Thiruvarur Muthuswami Iyer.

 

His statue, sculpted in white marble, has the pride of place in the midst of all the courts on the first floor. He served as a judge of considerable repute for 17 years. He died on January 15, 1895. His statue was installed in 1898.

His statue had been so positioned that it appeared to be watching the court of the then Chief Justice. Curiously enough, he never served as a Chief Justice of the court.

Are you wonderstruck at so many stories around the Madras High Court campus? Well, this is but a small sample!