Court directed the bank to reconsider the petitioner's representation on excessive interest claimed in DRT proceedings within four weeks. Writ petition disposed.
Directed first respondent bank to consider petitioner's submission on excessive interest and take appropriate decision within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.04.2015
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
W.P.No.25787 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
M/s.Viking Engineering Enterprises
rep. By its Proprietor V.Dheenadayalan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India, SARB,
2 nd Floor, Red Cross Building,
No.32, Monteith Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 8.
2. The Recovery Officer,
DRT III, Chennai,
5 th Floor, Spencer Tower,
No.770A, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the
records related to the order of attachment of immovable property
dated 06.08.2013 passed by the second respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karthic for Ms.Thenmozhi Shivaperumal For Respondents : Mr.S.Mohan for R1 R2 – Tribunal
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI, J.)
The petitioner has come up with the writ petition seeking to quash the order of the second respondent dated 06.08.2013.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in C.K.Sasankan Vs. Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited (2009 (2) D.R.T.C. 320 (S.C.)) focused his submission to the extent of grant of excessive interest. It is submitted that the Supreme Court has held that proper and reasonable rate of interest should be awarded as per the statutory provisions. It is further submitted that the bank authorities may be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner to take fresh decision on the interest part and after recalculation, if it is found that excess payment has been made to the bank, the bank may also be directed to adjust or refund the said amount to the borrower.
3.We are of the view that the above submission of the petitioner can be acceded to even at this stage. Accordingly, we direct the first respondent bank to consider the same and take appropriate decision in accordance with law and on its own merits, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4.With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mmi
To
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the bank should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the grant of excessive interest.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C.K.Sasankan Vs. Dhanalakshmi Bank LimitedReferred¶11
C.K.Sasankan Vs. Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited (2009 (2) D.R.T.C. 320 (S.C.))
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s.Viking Engineering Enterprises rep. By its Proprietor V.Dheenadayalan
The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, SARB
The Recovery Officer, DRT III, Chennai
SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI
M.VENUGOPAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
