Mr.E.Jothilingam, M/a-41 v. The Managing Director
Case brief
What is this about?
In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged the failure of the bank to sanction a loan despite a nodal order. The court directed the respondents to process the loan request within two weeks, making the petitioner's request within a week, without awarding costs.
What did the court decide?
Petitioner permitted to request loan disbursement within one week; Respondent 5 directed to pass orders within two weeks thereafter.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.04.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
Writ Petition No.7871 of 2016
E.Jothilingam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Managing Director,
TAHDCO,
Chennai-600 018.
2. District Manager,
District Manager Office,
TAHDCO, Kancheepuram.
3. The Collector,
Kancheepuram District Collector Office,
Kancheepuram.
4. The Regional Manager,
Canara Bank Circle Office,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.
5. The Manager,
Canara Bank,
Cheyyur Branch,
Cheyyur-603 302. ... Respondents
Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 4 to direct the 5th respondent to pass suitable orders on the representation sent by the petitioner dated 01.02.2016 with a direction to disburse loan to the petitioner as per Nodal Order No.A1/EDP-431/2015/2016 dated 06.11.2015 under TAHDCO Scheme.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Anandaraj For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, 1 to 3 Special Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.K.Radhakrishnamurthy 4 and 5
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court can direct the respondents to expeditiously pass orders sanctioning the petitioner's loan application under the TAHDCO scheme.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
E.Jothilingam
- respondent
The Managing Director, TAHDCO
- respondent
District Manager Office, TAHDCO, Kancheepuram
- respondent
The Collector, Kancheepuram
- respondent
The Regional Manager, Canara Bank Circle Office
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court