Disposed

R.Ranganathan, v. The Chief Manager

Madras HC20 Dec 2016WP/43744/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought cancellation of a hypothecation endorsement on his vehicle by the bank despite repaying the loan. The court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation regarding cancellation of endorsement and pass appropriate orders within two months.

R.Ranganathan, Vs The Chief Manager — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.12.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.43744 of 2016

R.Ranganathan

... Petitioner

vs.

The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Uttukuli Road, Tiruppur - 641 601.

¶10

The Assistant Manager (Public), State Bank of India, Main Branch, Uttukuli Road, Tiruppur - 641 601. ... Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to cancel the endorsement made in the TATA Sumo Car registration book bearing Registration No.TN 39 L 7071 of the petitioner by considering the representation dated 18.01.2016.

¶12

The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to cancel the endorsement made in his TATA Sumo Car registration book bearing Registration No.TN 39 L 7071, by considering his representation dated 18.01.2016.

¶13

According to the petitioner, he obtained a car loan to the tune of Rs.3,48,000/- from the 2nd respondent/Bank on 10.05.1999 for purchase of TATA Sumo Car bearing Registration No.TN 39 L 7071. The said Car was hypothecated with the respondent authorities and necessary endorsement was made in the registration book of the said vehicle. He further stated that he paid the entire loan amount along with accrued interest. However, the respondent falsely filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.49 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Sub Court at Tiruppur seeking recovery of money of a sum of Rs.1,88,341.68/- with 15.30% interest per annum from the petitioner. The petitioner

¶14

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

¶15

contested the suit and after an elaborate trial, the suit was dismissed, against which, the respondent did not prefer any appeal.

¶16

The only grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of repaying the entire dues and sending detailed representation to the respondent, he has not cancelled the endorsement made in the registration book of the aforesaid vehicle. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this
Court directs the respondents to consider the petitioner's
representation dated 18.01.2016 regarding cancellation of
endorsement made in his TATA SUMO Car Registration Book, in
accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction.
No costs.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
aeb
To:
1. The Chief Manager,
State Bank of India,
Main Branch,
Uttukuli Road,
Tiruppur - 641 601.
2. The Assistant Manager (Public),
State Bank of India,
Main Branch,
Uttukuli Road,
Tiruppur - 641 601.

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.43744 of 2016

¶21

+1 cc to Mr.K.Myilsamy Advocate sr 74195

¶22

pk(co)
aa01/02/2017

¶23

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

R.Ranganathan, v. The Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ranganathan, v. The Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.G.Palanisamy Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

R.P.Shakkthi @ Sathish Vs The Inspector General of

I.Madasamy Vs The Secretary to Government

K.Venkatakrishnan, Vs The Estate Officer

G.Desingu, Vs The Estate Officer

Mrs.R.Kasthuri Rajaramani, Vs The Secretary to Government