Dismissed

R.Arumugasamy v. The Deputy General Manager

Madras HC29 Oct 2021WP/23089/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct a bank to accept terms of a One Time Settlement offer where the time to pay had expired was dismissed. The Court held that no mandamus can issue directing a bank to extend an offer's tenure or rewrite terms unless the banker voluntarily does so.

What did the court decide?

No mandate issued directing the bank to accept past settlement terms; petition dismissed.

R.Arumugasamy Vs The Deputy General Manager — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 29.10.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶7

WP No.23089 of 2021

¶8

R.Arumugasamy .. Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1. The Deputy General Manager, M/s.Punjab National Bank, SASTRA Division, Zonal Sastra Centre, No.63, R.K.Salai, Chennai 600 004.

¶11

2. The Chief Manager, M/s.Punjab National Bank, SASTRA Division, Zonal Sastra Centre, No.63, R.K.Salai, Chennai 600 004. .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents to adhere and accept the terms and conditions
imposed by the United Bank of India vide its OTS sanction letter
dated 01.12.2018 and thereby permit the petitioner to pay a sum
of Rs.9 crores with interest till date in respect of the loan
account of the petitioner with the respondents and treat the
same as full and final settlement as per clause 6.2.11 of United
Bank of India NPA recovery policy.

¶13

For the Petitioner :Mr.B.Natarajan

¶14

For the Respondents : Mr.M.L.Ganesh

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

The petition is completely misconceived and the prayer
sought cannot be acceded to.

¶19

2. The petitioner seeks a mandamus for the respondent
secured creditor to allow the petitioner to now comply with the
terms and conditions of a one-time settlement sanction letter
issued on December 1, 2018.

¶20

3. Since the time to make the payment in terms of such

¶21

offer has long expired, the court has no authority to rewrite the offer unless the banker voluntarily does so. No mandamus can issue directing a bank to offer any settlement terms to its constituent or to extend the tenure of any offer beyond the period indicated.

¶22

WP No.23089 of 2021 is dismissed. There will be no order
as to costs.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

sra

¶28

To:

¶29

1. The Deputy General Manager, M/s.Punjab National Bank, SASTRA Division, Zonal Sastra Centre, No.63, R.K.Salai, Chennai 600 004.

¶30

2. The Chief Manager,

¶31

M/s.Punjab National Bank, SASTRA Division, Zonal Sastra Centre, No.63, R.K.Salai, Chennai 600 004.

¶32

WP No.23089 of 2021

¶33

SRA(CO)

¶34

B.VC (08/11/2021)

¶35

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

R.Arumugasamy v. The Deputy General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Arumugasamy v. The Deputy General 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

D.Vimala Vs The Registrar General

M/S.Lyca Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs S.Shankar

S.Abbas Vs Gagandeep singh Bedi I.A.S.

M.Senthil Nathan Vs Kr.Palaniappa Chettiar

Vgn Stafford Flat Owners Werlfare Association Vs Vgn Projects Estates Pvt. Ltd.

Naseembee Vs The State Election Commissioner