Dismissed

J Akshaya v. The Chief Manager

Madras HC19 Jul 2021WP/14759/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ directing the State Bank of India to extend the time to comply with a One Time Settlement scheme. The Court held that such matters are strictly between the bank and the constituent and possess no public element. Consequently, no writ was issued, though the bank was left open to consider an extension if the same is granted to similarly placed persons.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus refused; W.P. disposed of; Bank left open consideration to extend time if applied to similarly placed persons.

J Akshaya Vs The Chief Manager — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.07.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.14759 of 2021

¶7

J Akshaya Daughter of T.S. Jagannathan Proprietor of Sri Sai Agencies EMAAR Apartments Block No.2 Flat 201, No.75, Vaidyanathan Street Appollo Hospital, Tondiarpet Chennai - 600 081. .. Petitioner Vs

¶8

The Chief Manager State Bank of India (SME) (18529) Rajaji Salai, No.1 Anchor Gate Building Port Trust, Rajaji Salai Chennai - 600 001. .. Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent bank to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.06.2021 seeking for extension of time to comply with the scheme of one time settlement of NPAs and AUCAs (SBI OTS 2020) dated 30.11.2020 pertaining to cash credit account No.37672884752 of the petitioner and thereby enable the petitioner to comply with the scheme of one time settlement.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Premkumar For Respondent : Ms.S.R.Sumathy

¶11

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶12

The petitioner seeks a direction on the respondent bank to

¶13

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

¶14

allow the petitioner to avail of the one-time settlement scheme offered to the petitioner by making payments beyond the time indicated in the letter of offer.

¶15

Since the settlement offer is purely a matter between a bank and its constituent and does not involve any public element, such a prayer cannot be acceded to. It must also be remembered that banks make OTS offers to similarly placed constituents on certain common parameters. It would be unfair to direct the bank to vary the conditions in respect of one constituent, merely because such constituent has approached the court.

¶16

Accordingly, W.P.No.14759 of 2021 is disposed of by leaving it open to the respondent State Bank of India to consider extending the time for the petitioner to avail of the OTS offer; however, the same relaxation has also to be provided to similarly placed persons, in the event the bank modifies the terms for the petitioner herein.

¶17

There will be no order as to costs.

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

bbr

¶22

¶23

The Chief Manager State Bank of India (SME) (18529) Rajaji Salai, No.1 Anchor Gate Building Port Trust, Rajaji Salai Chennai - 600 001.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.K.Venkatesan, Advocate, S.R.No.34122

¶25

W.P.No.14759 of 2021

¶26

RSV(CO) SU(23/07/2021)

¶27

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

J Akshaya v. The Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J Akshaya v. The Chief Manager

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

G.Alex Benziger Vs The State of Tamilnadu

J.Ganessin Vs The Registrar (Vigilance)

M.K.Madhaiyan Vs The District Collector

M.N.Saravanan Vs The Collector

V.Sugumaran Vs U.Uma Devi

M/S.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S.Atm Constructions (P) Ltd.