Petitioner sought writ forbidding respondents 2 and 4 from interfering with property possession alleging unlawful interference and NPA status. Court held civil debt recovery nature; since bank initiated proceedings, relief not warranted. Petition dismissed.
Petitioner to bear consequences of dismissal; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P.NO.29890 OF 2018 AND W.M.P.NO.34895 OF 2018
Sri Gomatha Dairy represented by its Proprietrix C.Samundeeswari .. Petitioner
| Versus | |
|---|---|
| 1. |
The Sub Registrar, Thirukkanur, Pondicherry. |
| 2. |
The Inspector of Police, Villiyanur Police Station, Villiyanur, Pondicherry. |
| 3. |
The Commissioner, Komman Panchayat, Mannadipattu. |
| 4. |
The Andhra Bank, represented by its Branch Manager, 30/1, Villupuram Main Road, Kottaimedu, Villiyanur Branch, Pondicherry. .. Respondents |
| Con res pos No. bui Pan |
This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the stitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the pondents 2 and 4 from interfering with the peaceful session and enjoyment of the property comprised in Survey 44/3, measuring an extent of 1.62 Acres along with the lding therein at Vinayagampattu Village, Mannadipattu Commune chayat, Pondicherry unless by due process of law. |
| For Petitioner : No appearance |
|
| For Respondents : Mr. J. Kumaran, AGP, Pondicherry for R1 & R3 Mr.V.Balamurugane, APP(Pondicherry) for R2 Mr.R.Gowthamanarayanan for R4 |
ORDER
On 08.09.2021, when the matter was taken up for consideration, there was no representation for the petitioner either in person or through its learned counsel and hence, the same was directed to be posted today i.e., on 15.09.2021, under the caption 'for dismissal'. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioner. However, this court is inclined to consider the writ petition on merits.
2.It is averred in the writ petition filed by the petitioner that for the purpose of purchasing 125 milch cows, they availed agricultural term loan from the fourth respondent after executing two equitable mortgage deeds on 16.06.2015 and 26.09.2016 registered as Document Nos.10379/2015 and 22727/2016 respectively, in respect of the property in S.No.44/3 measuring to an extent of 22 kuzhi 6 veesam (1.62 acres) along with the building therein at Vinayagampattu village. They paid Rs.10,00,000/- as against the loan of Rs.60,00,000/- and Rs.18,24,548/- as against the loan of Rs.35,00,000/-. Further, they obtained insurance for all the milch cows from the United India Insurance Company and paid the premium amount of Rs.1,88,231/- on 12.07.2016. When the things stood thus, the milchi cows suffered from various diseases and therefore, the petitioner was unable to carry out their project and hence, sent a letter to the fourth respondent requesting to invoke the insurance as the entire unit is covered for the loan obtained by them. Instead of doing the same, the fourth respondent was sending several persons and threatening the petitioner to pay the outstanding loan amount, failing which, criminal action would be initiated. Apprehending the same, Crl.OP.No.15888 of 2018 was filed, seeking anticipatory bail, which was closed on 24.08.2018. The petitioner further averred that as the fourth respondent already declared the accounts of the petitioner as NPA on 30.06.2017 and 31.08.2017, if they want to recover the dues, they have to file a suit or initiate SARFAESI proceedings. Without doing so, the fourth respondent instigated the second respondent, who in turn, called upon the proprietrix of the petitioner company, for enquiry and threatened her to pay the loan amount. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for a mandamus, forbearing the respondents 2 and 4 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property except under due process of law.
3.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the petitioner has raised bald allegations against the police officials, who at no point of time, interfered with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the subject property.
He has also brought to the notice of this Court, the order passed by this Court on 24.8.2018 in Crl.O.P.No.15880 of 2015 filed by the petitioner for anticipatory bail, wherein, after recording the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that neither a case was registered, nor a petition enquiry was pending against the petitioner, this court closed the said petition.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the petitioner availed loan facilities from the fourth respondent bank. However, they defaulted in payment of monthly instalments. Therefore, the fourth respondent has initiated debt recovery proceedings against her and in order to escape from the clutches of legal proceedings, the petitioner has filed this writ petition raising various allegations against this respondent.
5.Considering the nature of the issue involved herein, which is more of civil in nature, and having regard to the submissions made on the side of the respondents, more particularly that the fourth respondent bank already initiated the proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of dues, this court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner.
6.In such view of the matter, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
//True Copy//
msr
To
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.47297
W.P. No. 29890 of 2018
RSV(CO) PM/25/10/2021
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court should intervene in a debt recovery dispute between a bank and a borrower where civil proceedings are pending.
Sri Gomatha Dairy represented by C. Samundeeswari
The Sub Registrar, Thirukkanur, Pondicherry
The Inspector of Police, Villiyanur
The Commissioner, Komman Panchayat, Mannadipattu
The Andhra Bank represented by its Branch Manager
R. MAHADEVAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
