Dismissed

A.Arul Princy v. Tamilnadu Mercantile bank Ltd.

Madras HC10 Nov 2022WP/20915/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to a bank to accept late renovation charges. The Court rejected the claim, noting procedural defects and failure to question the forfeiture letter, and held that the petitioner should have approached the DRAT.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner prevented from getting direction to pay late renovation charges. Writ petition dismissed subject to no order as to costs.

A.Arul Princy Vs Tamilnadu Mercantile bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.20915 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10.11.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶8

W.P.No.20915 of 2022

¶9

A.Arul Princy .. Petitioner

¶10

¶11

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., represented by Authorized Officer Hosur Branch 690/1, Old Bangalore Road 1^st Floor, Hosur 635 109 Krishnagiri District .. Respondent

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent Bank to accept the balance sale consideration of Rs.27,00,000/- within time period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶13

For Petitioner :: Mr.K.Balaganesh For Respondent :: Mr.S.Mohanraj for Mr.P.Tamilavel

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.No.20915 of 2022

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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

¶19

Mrs.A.Arul Princy, W/o Mr.Jayakumar has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a mandamus directing the respondent-Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited to accept the balance sale consideration of Rs.27,00,000/- within the period to be fixed by this Court.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the respondent Bank issued the sale notice in respect of the property in question and conducted the public auction on 23.02.2022, the petitioner took part in the proceedings and she was declared as the successful bidder for a sum of Rs.46,05,000/-. It is also stated that the petitioner also remitted a total sum of Rs.11,52,000/-, which includes 10% of the earnest money deposit of Rs.4,60,000/-, leaving the balance of Rs.34,53,000/- payable by the petitioner on or before 11.03.2022, as per the conditions of sale or within the extended maximum period of 90 days from the date of auction.

¶21

_____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.No.20915 of 2022

¶24

Again when the petitioner made a request, the respondent Bank also granted time upto 21.03.2022 to remit the remaining sale proceeds of Rs.34,53,000/. But the petitioner remitted only a sum of Rs.7,53,000/- on 31.03.2022. Finally, when the respondent Bank has extended the time again upto 23.05.2022 to remit the balance amount of Rs.27,00,000/-, the petitioner failed to make the payment within the prescribed time limit. Subsequently, the respondent Bank has issued the letter dated 31.05.2022 forfeiting the 25% bid amount paid by the petitioner, in terms of sub-rule (5) of Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that although the petitioner was unable to make the balance sale consideration on or before 23.05.2022, she is now prepared to make the entire payment, hence, a direction be issued, he pleaded.

¶25

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. We

¶26

have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶27

At the outset, it may be mentioned herein that the problem in the

¶28

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.No.20915 of 2022

¶31

claim made by the petitioner is three-fold.

¶32

4.1. Firstly, when the auction sale was held on 23.02.2022, the petitioner took part in the proceedings and she was declared as the successful bidder for a sum of Rs.46,05,000/-. Although the petitioner had remitted 25% of the sale price totalling to Rs.11,52,000/- including the EMD amount of Rs.4,60,000/-, in terms of the auction sale conditions, for the reasons best known, she did not make the balance amount of Rs.34,53,000/- before 11.03.2022. It is also the admitted case of both parties that the petitioner remitted only a sum of Rs.7,53,000/- on 31.03.2022, when she was granted time to make the entire balance amount on or before 21.03.2022.

¶33

4.2. Secondly, when the respondent Bank finally extended the time till 23.05.2022 to remit the balance amount of Rs.27,00,000/-, once again the petitioner failed to make the balance amount.

¶34

4.3. Thirdly, when the respondent Bank, in terms of sub-rule (5) of Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 has issued the letter dated 31.05.2022 forfeiting the amount paid by the petitioner, it is not

¶35

Page 4 of 6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.No.20915 of 2022

¶38

known why the petitioner has not questioned the letter dated 31.05.2022 forfeiting the amount deposited by the petitioner.

¶39

4.4. Fourthly, the petitioner has not impleaded the borrower. The

¶40

reason is that if the borrower keeps the amount ready for payment in lieu of the petitioner, she has got the right to redeem the property. But without impleading the borrower, she has filed the writ petition.

¶41

4.5. Finally, the petitioner ought to have approached the jurisdictional

¶42

Debts Recovery Tribunal to ventilate her grievance, which she has not done.

¶43

For all the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition fails and it is

¶44

dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.

¶45

Speaking/Non speaking order (T.R.,A.C.J.) (D.B.C.,J.) Index : yes/no 10.11.2022 ss

¶46

¶47

The Authorized Officer Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., Hosur Branch 690/1, Old Bangalore Road 1^st Floor, Hosur 635 109 Krishnagiri District

¶48

Page 5 of 6

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

W.P.No.20915 of 2022

¶51

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶52

AND

¶53

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.

W.P.No.20915 of 2022

10.11.2022

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.Arul Princy v. Tamilnadu Mercantile bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Arul Princy v. Tamilnadu Mercantile bank Ltd.

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

G.Chella Perumal (Died) Vs Gopalakrishnan

Shangamithran, Vs The District Collector

Duraisamy Vs The District Collector

The Commissioner of Food Safety Vs M/s. Lakshmi Mills Company Ltd.

M/s.Shreyanish Ispat (Chennai) Vs Reserve Bank of India

P.Rajkumar Vs Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.