The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a mandate to stop the respondents from using coercive methods to recover a loan. The court found the bank was not in a position to produce further documents regarding post-possession notice actions and was not inclined to issue the prayer.
No writ of mandamus was issued; writ petition dismissed.
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: 13.02.2017
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
Writ Petition No.29048 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
M.Poongkodi ...Petitioner
vs.
1.The Chief Manager
State Bank of India
Thennampalayam Branch
Kamaraj Road
Tiruppur, Pin Code - 641 604
2.M/s.Win Associates
C/o.The Chief Manager
State Bank of India
Thennampalayam Branch
Kamaraj Road, Tiruppur
Pin Code - 641 604 ...Respondents
WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to
engage any third degree methods for the collection of
outstanding dues from the petitioner and only to follow due
process of law as per SARFAESI Act, 2002.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kannan Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.P.D.Audikesavalu for R1
Mr.N.C.Ashok Kumar for R2
ORDER
(Delivered by S.MANIKUMAR, J)
Contending inter alia that M/s.Win Associates, Tiruppur, has abused and threatened the writ petitioner/borrower to settle the loan amount, borrower, has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Tiruppur Branch and M/s.Win Associates, respondents 1 and 2, not to
engage any third degree method for the collection of outstanding dues and to follow the due process of law as per SARFAESI Act, 2002.
In light of the above, we are not inclined to issue a Mandamus, as prayed for. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// asr Sub Assistant Registrar To
The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Thennampalayam Branch, Kamaraj Road, Tiruppur-641 604. +1cc to Mr.Kannan Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.9322 +1cc to Mr.Adikesavaly, Advocate, S.R.No.9610
PPA(CO) RS(01/03/2017) W.P.No.29048 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the bank and its agent to refrain from using third-degree methods for debt collection.
Whether the bank acted in compliance with the SARFAESI Act 2002 in enforcing security interest.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd vs Prakash Kaur & OrsReferred¶9
Appeal (crl.) No.267 of 2007 (Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd vs Prakash Kaur & Ors)
RBI/2007-2008/296 DBOD.No.Leg.BC.75/ 09.07.005/2007-08 dated 24.04.2008Referred¶9
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M.Pongkodi
The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Thennampalayam Branch
M/s.Win Associates
S. Manikumar
M. Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
