Petitioner filed writ petition directing Axis Bank to consider representations for one-time settlement in time bound manner. Court held such prayers are barred by settled law and dismissed petition as not maintainable.
Writ petition dismissed; no costs.
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: 08.02.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
W.P.No.30276 of 2016
P.R.Shanmugam ... Petitioner versus
Axis Bank Limited rep. By its Authorized Officer SME Centre Corporate Banking Branch I Floor Karumuthu Nilayam No.192 Anna Salai Chennai 600 002. ... Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to forthwith consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28/7/2016 and 18/8/2016 in a time bound manner.
For petitioner : Ms.Jayanthi K. Suresh for Mr.S.Ramesh For respondent : Mr.S.Jayaraman
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.)
Ms.Jayanthi K.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made submissions stating that the Guarantor is stated to have made two representations dated 28.07.2016 and 18.08.2016 for One Time Settlement. Contending inter alia that they were unanswered, writ of mandamus is sought for directing Axis Bank Limited, Chennai, the respondent herein, to forthwith consider the same in a time bound manner.
"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".
"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."
"7.In our considered opinion it is not proper for the Court to interfere in such matters relating 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.
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.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
+1cc to Mr.V.V.Sivakumar, Advocate Sr.8357
W.P.No.30276 of 2016
lrs[co]
srg 28/2/2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether High Court can issue writ of mandamus to direct bank to grant one-time settlement or reschedule loan.
Whether Court can compel bank for rephasement or One Time Settlement under Article 226.
Whether writ petition for time-bound consideration of settlement representation is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Vs. Millenium Business Solutions Private LimitedRelied on¶16
2004 (5) CTC 689
Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Vs. Millenium Business Solutions Private LimitedExplained¶17
2004 (5) CTC 689
R.Nanjappan Vs. The District Collector, CoimbatoreReferred¶18
2005 WLR 47
Chandra Singh Vs. State of RajasthanReferred¶18
JT 2003 (6) SC 20 · Who else cites this
Ramniklal N.Bhutta and Another Vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶18
1997 (1) SCC 134 · Who else cites this
Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West BengalExplained¶19
AIR 1963 SC 1044 · Who else cites this
P.R. Shanmugam
Axis Bank Limited
S. MANIKUMAR
M. GOVINDARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
