Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 28-08-2026

Case Overview

  • Applicants: PG Suresh Babu, P.S. Kavitha and P.S. Manish Babu filed an original application seeking an interim injunction.
  • Respondents: Swarnatara Group of Companies (represented by Founder‑cum‑Chairman Venkatrenga Gupta) and its eight associated entities, together with individual directors including Hariharan Krishnamoorthy, Venkatrenga Gupta, Vijayshree Gupta, Jayavignesh and S. Seetha.
  • Claim: Recovery of a joint and several sum of Rs 3,07,42,683/- alleged to be a secured debt arising from investments made after promises of 100 % returns. Initial returns were paid, but cheques issued in 2024 were returned with insufficient funds and later dishonoured.
  • Allegations: Respondents 10‑12 allegedly lured the applicants, obtained investments, and subsequently absconded. A criminal complaint was lodged against the first respondent and respondents 9‑15. The 12th respondent (mother of respondents 14‑15) purchased two immovable properties in 2017 and, through a sham Settlement Deed dated 21‑09‑2023 (Document No. 8717, Sub‑Registrar Villivakkam), transferred them to the 16th respondent (a third‑party daughter) at a grossly undervalued price to defeat creditor rights.
  • Defence: Respondents 14‑15 argued they were only temporary directors; the 12th respondent claimed the property was bought with personal funds and is her self‑acquired asset. They contended that a settlee cannot be held liable for the donor’s debts and that the 16th respondent, being a third party, is not subject to the lis.
  • Court Findings: The Court noted that the property is presently in the name of the 16th respondent and that the Settlement Deed’s recital indicates the transfer was made out of love, affection and recognition of the 16th respondent’s contribution to the family business. The admission that the 16th respondent accepted the settlement makes the property liable to be the subject of the lis.

Final Outcome

  • The Court grants the interim injunction sought by the applicants.
  • The injunction restrains the 16th respondent from alienating or encumbering the two properties listed as Item No. 1 and Item No. 2 in the Schedule to the Settlement Deed dated 21‑09‑2023 (Document No. 8717) pending final disposal of the suit.
  • No costs are awarded.

Topics: Injunction, Property Dispute