Counsel told the Madras High Court that the petitioner had submitted a list of 77 immovable properties and the court could appoint a committee headed by a retired judge to dispose them of.
| Photo Credit: FILE PHOTO
T. Devanathan Yadav of Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Nidhi Limited (MHPFNL) on Thursday expressed his inability to mobilise ₹100 crore, despite having obtained interim bail from the Madras High Court on September 15 this year on the condition that he should deposit the money on or before October 30.
Appearing before Justice K. Rajasekar, counsel for the accused said his client could not raise the money in the last 45 days since most of the documents related to the immovable properties were in the custody of the police. He sought six more months to deposit the amount.
Justice G. Jayachandran had granted the interim bail with a direction to the petitioner to mobilise ₹100 crore on his own and deposit it to the credit of the criminal case pending before a special court for the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act cases.
The judge had also directed the accused to surrender before the special court on October 31 for being sent back to judicial custody. However, his counsel told Justice Rajasekar (holding the bail portfolio at present) on Thursday that the High Court’s order was taken on appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to seek extension of time from the High Court. When Justice Rajasekar wanted to know the grounds on which such extension was being sought, counsel said almost all records were with the police and there were many holidays during the interim bail period.
He said the petitioner had submitted a list of 77 immovable properties and the court could appoint a committee headed by a retired judge to dispose them of. He claimed that the total worth of the properties was ₹633 crore though the liability to the depositors was only ₹561 crore.
The court was also told that the properties might get sold for a song if they were to be disposed of in a hurry. Making it clear that the intention of his client was to repay all the depositors and not to run away with their money, counsel claimed that a political colour was being given to the entire issue.
He said the petitioner had been administering MHPFNL successfully since 2005 and claimed that there were some defaults in payment of interest to the depositors in the recent past only because those who had borrowed money from the financial institution defaulted on re-payment owing to COVID-19. Counsel also urged the court to consider the fact that the petitioner was suffering from tuberculosis in the spinal cord and extend his interim bail until the money could be settled by appointing a committee to dispose of the 77 immovable properties.
On the other hand, advocates representing the depositors accused the petitioner of not having “moved even his little finger” in the last 45 days to mobilise the ₹100 crore. They said he had enjoyed the interim bail period and violated an affidavit filed by him agreeing to abide by any condition imposed by the court. The advocates insisted that the petitioner be sent back to jail.
Additional Public Prosecutor E. Raj Thilak told the court that though counsel was only seeking extension of time, his client had filed a petition to modify the conditions which require him to pay ₹100 crore and surrender on October 31.
After hearing their preliminary submissions, Justice Rajasekar directed the High Court Registry to list the bail petition as well as the modification application for a full-fledged hearing on Friday.
Published – October 30, 2025 11:00 pm IST
