The petitioner challenged the validity of a one-time settlement scheme offered by REPCO Home Finance Ltd. The Court rejected the petition, holding that writ courts cannot rewrite contracts or alter settlement terms offered by secured creditors.
The petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent secured creditor.
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.
W.P.(MD)No.19846 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.10.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
W.P.(MD) No.19846 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.17624 & 17625 of 2018
P.M.Neelamegam .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The Chief Manager, REPCO Home Finance Limited, No.24, Ram Arcade, B-14, 2nd Floor, Thillai Nagar, 11th Cross Main Road, Trichy-620 018.
2.The Authorized Signatory, Repco Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Office 3rd Floor, Alexander Square, New No.2 (Old No.34 & 35), Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-32. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Communication of the 2nd respondent dated 05.09.2018 quash that part of the communication stating that the One Time Settlement is valid only upto 15.09.2018 and consequently direct the Respondents to extend the time granted for settling the loan accounts TRY 1397, TRY 1258 and TRY 1254 with the Respondents Bank.
For Petitioner : Mrs.D.Geetha For R1 : Mr.Pala.Ramasamy For R2 : Mr.A. Elangovan for R2
Page 1 of 3
W.P.(MD)No.19846 of 2018
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE]
This petition is utterly misconceived and devoid of any merit.
Page 2 of 3
W.P.(MD)No.19846 of 2018
assessed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the respondent secured creditor.
Assistant Registrar (CRL)
// True Copy //
/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
MNR/LR
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 .
+1 CC to M/s.D. GEETHA, Advocate ( SR-32686[F] dated 26/10/2021 )
W.P.(MD) No.19846 of 2018 26.10.2021
MGJ/UV(08.11.2021) 3P 2C
Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Writ Court can interfere with a secured creditor's conditions for a one-time settlement.
Whether REPCO Home Finance Ltd qualifies as a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the High Court has authority to direct a bank to extend payment time granted under a settlement scheme.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P.M. Neelamegam
The Chief Manager, REPCO Home Finance Limited
The Authorized Signatory, Repco Home Finance Ltd.
Sanjib Banerjee
M. Duraiswamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
