Dismissed

A.Jothiramalingam v. the Branch Manager

Madras HC2 Aug 2019CRP/3631/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging execution proceedings regarding an educational loan decree. The Court held that the petitioner could not raise defences based on Union Government One Time Settlement guidelines during the execution stage since the underlying decree remained final and unchallengeable.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

A.Jothiramalingam Vs the Branch Manager — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

CRP (NPD)No.3631 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.08.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

CRP (NPD)No.3631 of 2014

¶7

and
M.P. No.1 of 2014
A. Jothiramalingam ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
Nagapattinam Branch,
Nagapattinam.
2. J.Sathish Kumar ... Respondents

¶8

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to allow the Civil Revision Petition by dismissing E.P. No.19 of 2012 in O.S. No.35 of 2004, pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam.

¶9

For petitioner : Mr. B. Harikrishnan For respondents : No appearance

¶10

1/6

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶12

CRP (NPD)No.3631 of 2014

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Execution Petition No.19 of 2012 initiated by the first respondent before the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam to execute the decree, dated 14.02.2007 in O.S. No.35 of 2004.

¶15

Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant Civil Revision Petition :

¶16

The petitioner is the second Judgment Debtor in the Execution Petition E.P. No.19 of 2012 in O.S. No.35 of 2004. The first respondent had obtained a money decree against the judgment debtors for the non re-payment of the educational loan availed by

¶17

them from the first respondent bank. The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed on the ground that waiver of interest was sanctioned by the Union Government in respect of small loan accounts on 22.12.2001. According to the petitioner, despite the waiver of interest, the first respondent has filed the suit for the recovery of interest amount from the petitioner, who has availed an educational loan.

¶18

2/6

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

CRP (NPD)No.3631 of 2014

¶21

According to the petitioner, he has repaid the entire loan (Principal) amount to the first respondent bank and therefore, as per the One Time Settlement sanctioned by the Union Government, he is not liable to pay the interest amount. In particular, the petitioner has referred to the guidelines issued by the Union Government on 22.12.2001 to all the banks, which reads as follows :

¶22

2.i)Coverage

¶23

a) The guidelines will cover all loan accounts with

¶24

outstanding balance of upto Rs.25,000/- principal amount (excluding any interest element) in all sectors irrespective of the nature of business or purpose which have become NPAs as

¶25

on March 31, 1998.

¶26

decreed debts. After the settlement is reached, the banks may take appropriate steps for closure of cases in respective courts.

¶27

c)The scheme will not, however, cover cases of fraud, malfeasance and wilful defaults.

¶28

d) The guidelines will be operative upto June 30, 2002.

¶29

3/6

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶31

CRP (NPD)No.3631 of 2014

¶32

Heard Mr.B. Harikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice had been served on the first respondent and the first respondent has entered appearance through a counsel, there is no representation for the first respondent. As regards the 2^nd respondent, though notice has been served and his name has also been printed in the cause list today, there is no representation on his

¶33

side.

¶34

Discussion :

¶35

Admittedly, the suit was decreed on 14.02.2007 and the

¶36

said decree has also not been challenged by the petitioner before any appellate Court. No application has also been filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte decree. Therefore, the decree dated 14.02.2007 has attained finality. This being the case, the petitioner cannot now rely upon in the execution stage the guidelines issued by the Union of India for One Time Settlement in respect of small loan accounts with the sanctioned limit upto Rs.25,000/-. If at all the petitioner had any defence, he should have raised all these defences in the suit and not in the execution stage. This Court does not find any merit in the Civil Revision Petition, as the decree passed against the petitioner has attained finality.

¶37

4/6

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶39

CRP (NPD)No.3631 of 2014

¶40

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.

¶41

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶42

02.08.2019
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
vsi2
To
The District Munsif,
Nagapattinam.

¶43

5/6

¶44

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶45

CRP (NPD)No.3631 of 2014

¶46

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶47

vsi2

¶48

CRP (NPD)No.3631 of 2014
02.08.2019

¶49

6/6

¶50

http://www.judis.nic.in

A.Jothiramalingam v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Jothiramalingam v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chokkalingam Vs Sophi

C.Mohan Vs P.Dhiraviyam

Palanisamy Vs Krishnan

V. Bhaskaran Vs Adhavan Chits (p) Ltdl

District Forest Officer Vs Perumal

Jai Nagar Kudiyiruppor Nala Vs Binny Ltd, Rep by Its Power