Dismissed

N.C.Lakshmi Narasimhan v. The Authorized Officer

Madras HC5 Jul 2017WP/11186/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 to direct the bank to consider a One Time Settlement proposal and reschedule a loan. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that loan recovery matters are contractual in nature. The Court cannot direct One Time Settlement or rescheduling via mandamus without a violation of law. Consequently, the petition w

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

N.C.Lakshmi Narasimhan Vs The Authorized… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.07.2017

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.11186 of 2017

¶6

N.C.Lakshmi Narasimhan ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs The Authorised Officer REPCO Bank 33 North Usman Road T. Nagar Chennai 600 017. ... Respondent

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's One Time Settlement proposal dated 8/2/2017 for the loan liability in Loan Account No.SLR13.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji For Respondent : Mr.D.Thirumurthy for Mr.K.Raghupathy O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by S.Manikumar,J)

¶10

Borrower has made a representation dated 8/2/2017, for One Time Settlement. Contending inter alia that the representation has not been considered, mandamus is sought for.

¶11

After considering a catena of decisions on the legal right of a person to seek for writ of mandamus, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Vs. Millenium Business Solutions Private Limited, reported in 2004 (5) CTC 689, at Paragraph Nos.7,8,16 and 18, held as follows:

¶12

"7.In our considered opinion it is not proper for the Court to interfere in such matters relating

¶13

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

¶14

to recovery of loans. Such matters are contractual in nature and writ jurisdiction is not the proper remedy for this. A writ lies when there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record, or there is violation of law. No writ lies merely for directing one time settlement or for directing rescheduling of the loan or for fixing instalments in connection with the loan. It is only the bank or the financial institution which granted the loan which can re-schedule it or fix one time settlement or grant instalments. The Court has no right under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct grant of one time settlement or for re-scheduling of the loan, or to fix instalments.

¶15

No doubt Article 226 on its plain language states that a writ can be used by the High Court for enforcing a fundamental right or for 'any other purpose'. However, by judician interpretation the words 'any other purpose' have been interpreted to mean the enforcement of any legal right or performance of any legal duty, vide Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1963 SC 1044. In the present case, the writ petitioner has really prayed for a Mandamus to the Corporation to grant it a one time settlement, but no violation of any law has been pointed out. In our opinion, no such mandamus can be issued in this case, and hence the writ petition should not have been entertained. A mandamus is issued only when the petitioner can show that he has a legal right to the performance of a public duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought.

¶16

A loan is granted in terms of the contract, and grant of one time settlement or rescheduling of the loan amount is really a modification of the contract, which can only be done by mutual consent of the parties, vide Section 62 of the Contract Act, 1872. The Court cannot alter the terms of the contract.

¶17

Before parting with the case we would like to mention that recovery of tens of thousands of crore rupees of loans of banks and financial institutions has been held up by Court orders under Article 226 proceedings which were really unwarranted. However, much sympathy a Court may have for a party, a writ Court must exercise its jurisdiction on well settled principles, and not a

¶18

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

¶19

mere sympathy or compassion. No doubt, there be hardship to a party, but unless violation of law is shown the Court cannot interfere. Holding up recoveries of loans by unwarranted Court orders is causing incalculable harm to our economy, since unless the loan is recovered a fresh loan cannot be granted to needy persons. The Courts must keep these considerations in mind."

¶20

A Hon'ble Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s.Digivision Electronics Ltd., Retistered Office at No.A5 & 6, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai - 32 Vs. Indian Bank, rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Head Office, 31, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1 and another, reported in 2005 (3) LW 269, wherein at paragraph No.42, held as follows:

¶21

"42. Some of the learned counsel submitted that the Court should direct one time settlement or fixing of installment or rescheduling the loan. In Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Vs. Millenium Business Solutions Private Limited, 2004 (5) CTC 689, it has been held that this Court cannot pass any such order in writ jurisdiction, since directing one time settlement or granting installments is really rescheduling the loan, which can only be done by the bank or financial institution which granted the loan. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot reschedule a loan. A writ is issued when there is violation of law or error of law apparent on the face of the record, and not for rescheduling loans. The Court must exercise restraint in such matters, and not depart from well settled legal principles".

¶22

At paragraph No.46, in M/s.Digivision Electronics Ltd., Retistered Office at No.A5 & 6, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai - 32 Vs. Indian Bank, rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Head Office, 31, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1 and another, reported in 2005 (3) LW 269, the Hon'ble Division Bench further held as follows:

¶23

"46. Writ is a discretionary remedy, and hence this Court under Article 226 is not bound to interfere even if there is a technical violation of law, vide R.Nanjappan Vs. The District Collector, Coimbatore, 2005 WLR 47, Chandra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2003 (6) SC 20. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division-IV) Ltd., Dindigul Vs. P.Ellappan, 2005 (1) MLJ 639, Ramniklal N.Bhutta and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1997 (1) SCC 134, etc."

¶24

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

¶25

Decisions stated supra are proximate to the principles of law to be followed in the matter of rephasement and settlement of dues. In the light of the above discussions and decisions, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶28

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mvs
+1cc to Mr.C.K.M.Appaji, Advocate, S.R.No.47477
+1cc to Mr.K.Raghupathy, Advocate, S.R.No.46761
Writ Petition No.11186 of 2017
KJI(CO)
CA(11/07/2017)

¶29

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

N.C.Lakshmi Narasimhan v. The Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.C.Lakshmi Narasimhan v. The Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Ravikumar Vs The Indusind Bank, rep. by The

The Executive Officer Vs Amman Arts and Science

M/s.Hotel Naveen Inn Vs The Reserve Bank of India

M/S.Balaji Impex Vs the Commissioner of

Anil Rai, Vs M/s.Cholamandalam Investment

R.Sathyanarayanan, Vs The State Bank of India rep by