Dismissed

M/S. R.S. Distributors,Rep by v. the Regional Manager

Madras HC20 Feb 2014WP(MD)/2776/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a bank notice. The Court refused to extend time for payment of dues, holding that settlement terms are matters for the contractual parties and beyond judicial interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; no costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

M/S. R.S. Distributors,Rep by Vs the… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.02.2014 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

¶4

Writ Petition (MD) No.2776 of 2014

¶5

M/s.R.S.Distributors, rep by its Proprietor J.Kathiresan, RH 14, Palami Enclave, New Natham Road, Reserve Line, Madurai 625 014, Now residing at No.7, Managiri 5^th Street, K.K.Nagar, Madurai 20 ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Regional Manager, Tamil Nad Mercantile Bank Ltd., Madurai Regional office, No.30, Besant Road, Chinna Chokkikulam, Madurai 625 002 ... Respondent

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notice issued by the respondent in Ref.No.MR.OTS. Cor.108/2013-14 dated 14.2.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent not to take any steps toward auctioning in consequence to the impugned notice.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sethuraman

¶10

ORDER

¶11

(Order of the Court was made by R.SUDHAKAR,J. )

¶12

The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the notice issued by the respondent in Ref.No.MR.OTS. Cor.108/2013-14, dated 14.2.2014 and consequently to direct the respondent not to take any steps to auction in consequence to the impugned notice.

¶13

2.The impugned notice dated 14.02.2014 is a reply to the petitioner's representation, dated 07.02.2014 seeking clarification as to whether the one time settlement should be made available as on 31.08.2013 or 31.08.2014.

¶14

3.The respondent bank has clarified in the impugned notice that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ at the behest of the petitioner the one time settlement was offered to settle the entire liability as on 31.08.2013 positively. This undertaking of the petitioner was indicated in the proceedings dated

¶15

¶16

08.01.2014 which the petitioner tried to misinterpret before this Court in the earlier proceedings and the respondent bank clearly states that the petitioner is bound by the undertaking to settle the dues as on 31.08.2013.

¶17

4.The respondent bank also states in the impugned notice that since it is the matter of agreement between the parties, there is no question of interpreting the letter in the manner that the petitioner wants. The bank also states that even assuming that there is want of consensus on the cut off date, it would only mean that there is no valid agreement or contract in respect of the one time settlement. It is further stated in the impugned notice that the one time settlement offered has already been cancelled by communication dated 08.01.2014 and the petitioner was directed to remit the dues.

¶18

5.The present plea is only to grant extension of time for payment of dues within a specified period of time. We are afraid that such a request cannot be entertained as the issue with regard to the one time settlement is purely between the bank and the borrower, the Court will not interfere on the terms of settlement and will not direct the bank for settlement on the liability in the manner that the petitioner wants. Further, in the matter of contract, more particularly between the bank and the individual borrower, the role of the Court is very limited and therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.

¶19

6.Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Crl)

¶21

/True Copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

The Regional Manager, Tamil Nad Mercantile Bank Ltd., Madurai Regional office, No.30, Besant Road, Chinna Chokkikulam, Madurai 625 002

¶25

+1cc to Mr.S.Sethuraman Advocate, Sr.No. 11034 sms AA/05.03.2014/2p- 3c/

¶26

Writ Petition (MD) No.2776 of 2014 20.02.2014

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S. R.S. Distributors,Rep by v. the Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. R.S. Distributors,Rep by v. the Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Selvam, Vs Palayampatti Grade I

K. Karuppasamy Vs the District Collector

The Secretary Vs L.Sangeetha

Mukasa Kalyanapuram Sriram Vs the Chief Secretary

M. Kamaraj, Vs the Executive Engineer

Ln.R. Shanmuga Suntharam, Vs the District Collector