Disposed

Suyambulingam S v. Regional Manager

Madras HC11 Nov 2021WP(MD)/15616/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought the return of his property documents deposited with the bank. The court directed that since accounts were settled, the bank should reconcile debts within three weeks, pay any due amount, and return the title deeds, also considering pending Tribunal withdrawal memos.

What did the court decide?

Direct the bankers to reconcile accounts within 3 weeks, pay any due amount to the petitioner, and return the title deeds. Direct the alternate Tribunal member to examine withdrawal memos before passi

Suyambulingam S Vs Regional Manager — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.15616 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.11.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.15616 of 2021

¶7

S.Suyambulingam ... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

1.The Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Tirunelveli Region, No.3A/16, First Floor, Vannarapettai, South By-Pass Road, Tirunelveli-627 003.

¶9

2.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Tisaiyanvilai Branch, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents No.1 and 2 to return the petitioner's entire original documents deposited on 26.02.2005 by virtue of registered deposit of title deed dated 1665/2013 by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 28.07.2021, without delay.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.Pethu Rajesh Standing Counsel

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The present Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus seeking a direction for return of title deeds which had been deposited with the Bank.

¶14

The title deeds of the petitioner's property had been deposited with the Respondents/Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited in view of the earlier loan transactions between the petitioner and the respondent. Now the accounts have been settled and it is stated by learned counsel for the respondents that the Bank will have to pay a certain sum of amount to the petitioner on reconciliation of the accounts.

¶15

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

¶16

1/3

¶17

W.P(MD)No.15616 of 2021

¶18

The contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that since the petitioner had rushed to the Debt Recovery Tribunal and had filed S.A.Nos.246/18, 258/18, 173/18 and 224/18, the said Tribunal on the basis of those applications may pass any order that may be adverse to the petitioner or may be adverse to the respondent herein. It is therefore stated that title deeds are held pending disposal of the aforesaid petitions.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the petitioner however stated that he had filed necessary memos before the Tribunal seeking withdrawal of the said S.A.Nos.246/18, 258/18, 173/18 and 224/18, but orders have not been passed owing to vacancy in the Tribunal.

¶20

There is always an alternate Tribunal member who can examine these issues and the petitioner may urge, on the basis of the present order that necessary orders may be passed in his memos seeking withdrawal and a direction is issued that if such a request is placed, the alternate Tribunal member may examine such withdrawal memos, and if they are bona fide , pass necessary orders.

¶21

After the order is passed within a period of three (3) weeks, the debits and credits between the petitioner and the respondents should be reconciled and if money is to be paid, it must be paid to the petitioner and the title deeds should be returned back to the petitioner herein.

¶22

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Assistant Registrar (Records)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

Nsr/Lm

¶26

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶27

To:

¶28

1.The Regional Manager,

¶29

Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Tirunelveli Region,

¶30

No.3A/16, First Floor,

¶31

Vannarapettai, South By-Pass Road, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tirunelveli-627 003.

¶32

2/3

¶33

W.P(MD)No.15616 of 2021

¶34

2.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Tisaiyanvilai Branch, Tirunelveli District.

¶35

+1 CC to M/s.P.PETHU RAJESH, Advocate ( SR-34220[F] dated 12/11/2021 )

¶36

+1 CC to M/s.R. BALAKRISHNAN, Advocate ( SR-34210[F] dated 11/11/2021 )

¶37

W.P(MD)No.15616 of 2021

¶38

11.11.2021

¶39

RD(29.11.2021) 3P 5C

¶40

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

¶41

3/3

Suyambulingam S v. Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suyambulingam S v. Regional 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

Geetha.M Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Popular Muthiah Vs the Commissioner

Vidhya Vs the Commissioner

Uma Venkatachalam Vs the Tahsildar

Akilaa V.M Vs the Dental Council of India

Nitheshraj S Vs the District Collector