Disposed¶35

Perumal Dillibabu Reddy v. The Indian Overseas Bank

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Feb 2026WP/31121/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition No. 31121 of 2025, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J., 02.02.2026 — vehicle loan One Time Settlement of Rs.3,11,000/- with Indian Overseas Bank (Tirupati branch); original loan Rs.8,00,000/- (2010, Loan A/c 271000006, Innova vehicle); account declared NPA; recovery suit O.S. No. 325 of 2019 (V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati); Crime No. 165 of 2024 under Section 173 BNSS after vehicle accident; dues paid by Demand Draft; dispute settled; writ petition closed, no costs; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the Writ Petition was closed with no costs in view of the settlement of the dispute between the parties, and miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending therein were directed to stand closed. ¶35

Perumal Dillibabu Reddy Vs The Indian Overseas Bank — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the respondent/banker in not permitting the petitioner to clear the vehicle loan dues of Rs.3,11,000/- pursuant to the One Time Settlement is illegal, and whether the respondent/banker should be directed to permit the petitioner to clear the said dues.

¶26

Court's answer

The Court recorded the concurrence of learned counsel on both sides that the vehicle loan stands settled for Rs.3,11,000/-, paid by the petitioner by way of Demand Draft, and that the dispute between the parties now stands settled.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

In view of the submissions made by both sides, the Court held that no further orders are necessary in the present Writ Petition.

¶33

Key takeaways

The Writ Petition is closed with no costs, and miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.) — Vehicle loan — One Time Settlement (OTS). Petitioner, a journalist, sought a declaration that the bank's action in not permitting him to clear vehicle loan dues of Rs.3,11,000/- (Loan A/c No. 043303271000006) under the OTS entered into with the bank was illegal, and a direction to permit such clearance. The original loan of Rs.8,00,000/- (2010, Loan A/c No. 271000006, Innova vehicle) had been declared an NPA and recovery suit O.S. No. 325 of 2019 was filed by the bank before the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. Learned counsel for both sides concurred that the vehicle loan stands settled for Rs.3,11,000/-, paid by Demand Draft, and that the dispute between the parties stands settled. Held: in view of the submissions of both sides, no further orders were necessary; Writ Petition closed with no costs and pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

¶1

APHC010596342025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3327]

¶5

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 31121/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

PERUMAL DILLIBABU REDDY, S/O. VENKATA CHALAPATHI REDDY, AGE- 61 YEARS, OCC- JOURNALIST, R/O.20-434/G3, JAYALAKSHMI STREET, KOTTAPALLI, TIRUPATI TOWN, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517501.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (MD AND CEO), CENTRAL OFFICE, D.NO.762/763, LOB, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI POST, TAMILNADU-600002.

¶14

THE BRANCH MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, W MAHAL ROAD (MASK ROAD), NEAR NEW MUNICIPAL OFFICE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA

¶15

¶16

PRADESH.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

1.PEETA RAMAN

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶21

1.SUDHA MADHURI GOVINDU

¶22

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶24

Writ Petition No. 31121 of 2025

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent/banker in not permitting the petitioner to clear the vehicle loan dues of Rs.3,11,000/- relating to Loan Account No. 043303271000006, pursuant to the One Time Settlement entered into by the petitioner with the respondent/banker, as illegal, and consequently to direct the respondent/banker to permit the petitioner to clear the said vehicle loan dues to the extent of Rs.3,11,000/- in terms of the One Time Settlement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent/banker.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner availed a loan to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- in the year 2010 under Loan Account No. 271000006 for the purpose of purchasing an Innova vehicle. Thereafter, the petitioner committed default in repayment of the loan, and in due course,

¶29

¶30

respondent No.2 declared the petitioner’s loan account as a NonPerforming Asset (NPA). Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 filed a suit in O.S. No. 325 of 2019 on the file of the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, for recovery of the amount.

¶31

Case of the petitioner is that the said vehicle met with an accident, on the basis of which a case in Crime No. 165 of 2024 was registered for the offence under Section 173 of the BNSS. The petitioner, intending to clear the loan amount, opted for a One Time Settlement, and accordingly, both the petitioner and respondent No.2 agreed to settle the vehicle loan for a sum of Rs.3,11,000/-. In furtherance of the said settlement, the petitioner handed over demand drafts amounting to Rs.3,11,000/- to respondent No.2.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondents also concurred with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle loan has been settled for a sum of Rs.3,11,000/and the same was paid by the petitioner by way of Demand Draft, and that the dispute between the parties now stands settled.

¶33