Dismissed

M/s.Appoorva Traders v. Syndicate Bank

Madras HC30 Apr 2021WP/20013/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A borrower challenging the secured bank's refusal to accept a one-time settlement offer. The court held a borrower lacks standing to seek mandamus in this context and cannot retain a secured asset if dues remain unpaid. It is not the appropriate forum for complaints under SFA.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition praying for enforcement of a one-time settlement offer was dismissed.

M/s.Appoorva Traders Vs Syndicate Bank — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 30.04.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶7

W.P.No.20013 of 2020

¶8

and W.M.P.No.24689 of 2020

¶9

M/s.Appoorva Traders Proprietor: R.Rajaraman, No.55/78, Balagopalapuram Street, Pollachi, Coimbatore 642 001. .. Petitioner

¶10

-vs-

¶11

1.Syndicate Bank, Now amalgamated as, Canara Bank, No.80/1, Venkataraman Street, Pollachi-2, Coimbatore District. 2.The Canara Bank, Regional Office No.II, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore 641 002. 3.R.Bhavani .. Respondents

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent bank to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.12.2020 for (One time settlement offer) OTS offer.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sidharthan

¶14

ORDER (Made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶15

The petitioner says that despite the petitioner’s offer to pay off the amount as offered by a bidder at an e-auction conducted by the secured creditor, the secured creditor has not

¶16

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

¶17

considered the petitioner’s offer.

¶18

The petitioner has borrowed from the Syndicate Bank which has now merged into Canara Bank. The petitioner says that the secured creditor took steps to sell the secured asset but the entire sale consideration may not have been received. The petitioner says that secured asset should now be made over to the petitioner on the petitioner paying the same amount as was bid.

¶19

As borrower, the petitioner has no right to seek a writ in the nature of mandamus of the kind that is evident from this petition. It is true that a borrower may also bid for the secured asset, but, ordinarily, when a secured creditor has a claim and after the sale of the secured asset some part of the claim survives, the secured creditor may again proceed against the asset, though not as the security, but merely as an asset of a debtor.

¶20

It is irrelevant as to whether the person who bid the highest at the auction has not stayed back to take the property. Considering the extent of the petitioner’s indebtedness, the bank cannot be expected to willy-nilly settle the claim on the basis of the sale of only one secured asset.

¶21

The grievance of the petitioner appears to be somewhat contrived, particularly as the petitioner ought to be aware that this is not the appropriate forum to receive a complaint against measures adopted by a secured creditor under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Further, in equity, the petitioner cannot buy back the asset that the petitioner has given by way of security and the petitioner be allowed to retain such asset notwithstanding the dues of the petitioner not being discharged.

¶22

It will be open to the respondent bank to lodge an appropriate claim against the petitioner. It will also be open to the secured creditor to take appropriate measures to realise its just dues in accordance with law.

¶23

W.P.No.20013 of 2020 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. W.M.P.No.24689 of 2020 is closed.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

sra

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

1.Syndicate Bank, Now amalgamated as, Canara Bank, No.80/1, Venkataraman Street, Pollachi-2, Coimbatore District.

¶31

2.The Canara Bank, Regional Office No.II, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore 641 002.

¶32

+1cc to Mr.P.Sidharthan, Advocate, S.R.No.26674

¶33

W.P.No.20013 of 2020
CP(CO)
CB(21/06/2021)

¶34

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

M/s.Appoorva Traders v. Syndicate Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Appoorva Traders v. Syndicate Bank

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

Venkatesh Rajasekaran Vs The Authorized Officer

Kumbhat Holographics Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

D.Dhamodharen Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Gevika Agro Food Private Limited Vs Bank of India

M.Ambika Vs The Branch Manager

Anna Nagar West Extension Association Vs The District Collector