Dismissed

S.K.J.Satheesh, v. the Principal Chief Manager

Madras HC18 Nov 2022WP(MD)/12910/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition and contempt petition regarding a loan dispute over agricultural machinery. Relying on an arbitration clause in the loan agreement and disputed facts about possession, the Court held itself unable to intervene further.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to petitioner to work out remedy in manner known to law; contempt petition closed.

S.K.J.Satheesh, Vs the Principal Chief Manager — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

WP(MD)No.12910 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 18.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.12910 of 2013 and WMP(MD)Nos.1 of 2013 and 1 of 2014 and

¶7

Cont.P(MD)No.1566 of 2014

S.K.J.Satheesh

... Petitioner

1.The Principal Chief Engineer, Department of Banking Supervision, Reserve Bank of India,

¶12

World Trade Centre,

¶13

Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 5.

¶14

2.The Chief Executive.

¶15

L&T Finance Limited,

¶16

L&T House, N.M.Marg,

¶17

Ballard Estate, Mumbai -1.

¶18

3.The Branch Head

¶19

L&T Finance Limited, No.489 1^st Floor,

¶20

Vinayaga Nagar, K.K.Nagar, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶21

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a

¶22

Writ of Mandamus forbearing the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents from

¶23

taking possession of the agriculture machinery bearing chasis number IN10393 of the petitioner without due process

¶24

1/10

¶25

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

¶26

WP(MD)No.12910 of 2013

¶27

of law and consequently direct the second and third respondents to reschedule the loan of the petitioner.

¶28

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Selvan For Respondent : Mr.Anand C.Rajesh Nos.2 and 3 For Respondent : No appearance No.1

¶29

CONT P(MD)No.1566 of 2014

S.K.J.Satheesh

... Petitioner Vs

1.Dinanath Dubhashi

The Chief Executive.

L&T Finance Limited,

L&T House, N.M.Marg,

Ballard Estate, Mumbai -1.

¶37

2.N.Saravanan, The Branch Head L&T Finance Limited, No.489 1^st Floor, Vinayaga Nagar, K.K.Nagar, Madurai.

¶38

... Respondents

¶39

PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for their deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of this Court made in MP(MD)No.1 of 2013 in WP(MD)No.12910 of 2013 dated 02.08.2013.

¶40

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Selvan

¶41

For Respondents : Mr.Anand C.Rajesh

¶42

2/10

¶43

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

¶44

WP(MD)No.12910 of 2013

¶45

COMMON ORDER

¶46

The petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the second and third respondents from taking possession of the agricultural machinery bearing chasis number IN10393 of the petitioner without due process of law and for consequential direction to direct second and third respondents to reschedule the

¶47

loan of the petitioner. The contempt petition is filed to punish the respondents for their deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of this Court made in MP(MD)No.1 of 2013 in WP(MD)No.12910 of 2013 dated 02.08.2013.

¶48

2.Both the contempt petition and the writ petition are taken up for hearing and disposed of by this common order.

¶49

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶50

the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.14,12,495/- in the third respondent bank for the purchase of agriculture machine from Kubota Agriculture Machinary India DC-68 G, Chasis No.IN10393 by way of loan cum hypothecation in hypothecation No.OKG148043R12000453028. The repayment of

¶51

3/10

¶52

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

¶53

WP(MD)No.12910 of 2013

¶54

installments are 12 and the installment is once in a three months. The petitioner has paid three installments and only

¶55

January and April 2014 installments have to be paid.

¶56

While so, the second and third respondents sent a legal notice dated 06.06.2013 calling upon the petitioner to pay the due amount of Rs.3,75,000/- or otherwise within stipulated time, vehicle would be taken possession.

¶57

time to pay the dues and requested them to reschedule the

¶58

loan amount. The petitioner to show his bonafide has also

¶59

paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- on 03.07.2013. While so,

¶60

on 22.07.2013 the second and third respondents attempted to take possession of the vehicle and therefore, he filed the above writ petition.

¶61

R.21,75,000/-; loan amount is Rs.14,12,945/-; Down payment is Rs.7,62,505/-; Upto October 2013, the petitioner paid five installments i.e., a sum of Rs.7,90,000/-; Total amount paid by the petitioner is Rs.15,52,505/-. 4/10

¶62

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

¶63

WP(MD)No.12910 of 2013

¶64

6.This Court while entertaining this writ petition granted an order of interim injunction in MP(MD)No.1 of 2013 in WP(MD)No.12910 of 2013 dated 02.08.2013 restraining respondents 2 and 3 from taking possession of the agriculture machinery bearing chasis number IN10393, pending disposal of the writ petition. This order dated

¶65

02.08.2013 was made ready on 07.08.2013. While so, the second and third respondents are said to have taken possession of the petitioner's machinery on 26.02.2014 with the help of goondas and therefore, the petitioner has also filed a contempt petition in Cont.P(MD)No.1566 of 2014 before this Court. This Court has issued notice in the contempt petition.

¶66

7.The learned Counsel for respondents submits that the

¶67

petitioner has approached the second and third respondents and obtained loan of Rs.14,12,495/- for purchasing Kubota Agriculture Machinery India DC-68 (Harvester Machine) on

¶68

loan cum hypothecation agreement. As per the agreement the petitioner agreed to repay the said loan with interest aggregating to Rs.18,96,000/- in 12 installments as per the repayment schedule. The repayment schedule commences from 5/10

¶69

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

¶70

WP(MD)No.12910 of 2013

¶71

10.04.2012 and the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs. 1,58,000/- in each installment. Under the terms and conditions of the said agreement the petitioner has agreed

¶72

to pay additional interest at the rate of 36% for delayed

¶73

payments. Further the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to repossess the vehicle in the event of default in payment of schedule installments. The petitioner has failed to pay the

¶74

installment falls due on January and April 2013 the respondent 2 and 3 have issued notice dated 06.06.2013 calling upon the petitioner to pay the then due amount Rs.3,75,932/-.

¶75

8.The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that

¶76

the transaction between the petitioner and the second and third respondents are purely based on the contract and as

¶77

per clause 12(1) of the terms of the loan cum

¶78

hypothecation, the parties can resolve their disputes only

¶79

through arbitration and this writ petition is not

¶80

maintainable. The respondents have also denied that they have taken possession of the machinery and the petitioner only handed over the machinery for his default in repayment

¶81

of the loan installment. They claim that they have also 6/10

¶82

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

¶83

WP(MD)No.12910 of 2013

¶84

filed a vacate stay petition as early as in the month of December 2013.

¶85

9.Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

¶86

10.The petitioner has availed loan from the second and

¶87

third respondents on 11.01.2012 to the tune of

¶88

Rs.14,12,495/- on loan cum hypothecation agreement. As per the terms of the said loan agreement, if any dispute with regard to the transaction as per clause 12(1) of the loan agreement, the parties have to resolve their dispute only through arbitration. Admittedly the petitioner has committed default in payment of the installment for the month of January and April 2013. As per the loan cum

¶89

hypothecation agreement, the respondents are having right

¶90

to repossess the vehicle, if the borrower fails to repay the loan amount.

¶91

11.Though this Court has entertained this writ

¶92

petition at the stage of admission and granted interim order of injunction on 02.08.2013, the respondents have 7/10

¶93

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

¶94

WP(MD)No.12910 of 2013

¶95

filed a vacate stay application in the year 2013 itself and the same is pending. Whether the respondents have taken possession of the vehicle illegally or whether the petitioner has voluntarily handed over the vehicle are disputed facts and it cannot be decided by this Court. Since the issue between the petitioner and the respondents are based on a contract and there is already a clause for arbitration, this Court is not inclined to pass any further orders. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

¶96

12.In view of the order passed in this writ petition, the contempt petition stands closed.

18.11.2022

dsk

8/10

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

¶101

WP(MD)No.12910 of 2013

¶102

¶103

1.The Principal Chief Engineer, Department of Banking Supervision, Reserve Bank of India, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 5.

¶104

2.The Chief Executive. L&T Finance Limited, L&T House, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai -1.

¶105

3.The Branch Head L&T Finance Limited, No.489 1^st Floor, Vinayaga Nagar, K.K.Nagar, Madurai.

¶106

9/10

¶107

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

¶108

WP(MD)No.12910 of 2013

¶109

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶110

dsk

¶111

W.P(MD)No.12910 of 2013

¶112

18.11.2022

¶113

10/10

¶114

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

S.K.J.Satheesh, v. the Principal Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.K.J.Satheesh, v. the Principal Chief Manager

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

K.K.Karuppasamy(Died) 1. Santhanakaruppasamy Vs v.G.Ramdoss

A. Viswanathan, Vs Muthu Sangeetha

Uthayakumar, Vs K. Vanaja

K.R. Natarajan Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

Kavitha, Vs Dhinakar Babu

R.Shamili Vs C. Manojkumar