Dismissed

R.Mahesh v. the District Collector

Madras HC23 Mar 2017WP(MD)/5087/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a borrower against a District Collector and a finance company seeking protection from action on a possession notice. The Court held the case was devoid of merits as the loan was declared NPA earlier and the recovery application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal was time-barred.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; no costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

R.Mahesh Vs the District Collector — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.03.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

W.P.[MD].No.5087 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD).No.4095 of 2017

¶7

R. Mahesh : Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Collector, District Collector Office, Pudhukottai.

¶10

Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited, Sundaram towers, Whites road, Chennai – 600 014. : Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order, directing the first respondent and second respondent not to take any action against the petitioner's property mentioned in the possession notice dated 15.10.2014, without adhering to the procedure contemplated in law.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathish Kumar For Respondent No.1 : Mr.V.Muruganantham Additional Government Pleader

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

***************

¶15

[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]

¶16

Heard Mr.S.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent.

¶17

The petitioner, who had borrowed loan from the second respondent/finance company, has come forward with this Writ Petition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ praying for a direction to the respondents not to take any action, pursuant to the possession notice dated 15.10.2014.

¶18

¶19

It is the admission of the petitioner that as against the above proceedings, the petitioner has approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal and it appears that the said application is time barred and the petitioner has been declared as a defaulter much prior to the year 2014 and his loan account has become NPA on 30.05.2014 and the possession notice has been issued on 15.10.2014. Thus, at this distant point of time, we are not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition nor to grant the relief sought for by him and the Writ Petition is devoid of merits.

¶20

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar (T&P)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

The District Collector, District Collector Office, Pudhukottai.

¶26

1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No. 17594 NB

¶27

TE/SV-MMS/SAR-IV : 05/04/2017 : 2P/3C

¶28

ORDER MADE IN W.P.[MD].No.5087 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD).No.4095 of 2017 23.03.2017

¶29

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

R.Mahesh v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Mahesh v. the District Collector

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

The Secretary to Government Vs Mrs.M.C.Sheela Evanjalin

Manoharan Vs the Inspector General of

P. Karpagavalli Vs the Superintendent of Police

M/S.Veesons Energy Systems Vs the Chief Manager &

M.Samuthirapandi Vs the Authorised Officer, SBI

Rm.Ponnalagu Pattar, Vs the Joint Commissioner