Dismissed

Ramesh.M v. the Authorized Officer

Madras HC12 Dec 2022WP(MD)/4037/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a mandate for the bank to accept a Lok Adalat award and grant time for remitting the balance loan amount. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner failed to submit a required payment proposal to the bank.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Ramesh.M Vs the Authorized Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.4037 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶8

W.P.(MD) No.4037 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)No.3465 of 2022

¶9

M.Ramesh ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Authorized Officer, Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd., 4^th Floor, Phaseil, Spencerplaza, No.769, Mount Road, Annasalai, Chennai.

¶12

2.The Manager, Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd., Rajakkamangalam Road, Ramanputhoor, Simon Nagar, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to accept the award passed before

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.4037 of 2022

¶17

LOK ADALAT held at Tirunelveli as case No.24, dated 22.03.2022 and to grant some time for the remittance of the balance amount of Rs.13,69,000/-

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Cenil For Respondents : Mr.B.Baskar

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

[Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.]

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to accept the award passed before LOK ADALAT held at Tirunelveli as case No.24, dated 22.03.2022 and to grant some time for the remittance of the balance amount of Rs.13,69,000/-.

¶22

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has borrowed a sum of Rs.

¶23

17,20,000/- from the respondents Bank in the year 2018 and he has paid ten installments without any delay. Due to COVID-19, the petitioner could not able to run his business and therefore, he has not paid the remaining installments to the respondent bank. The respondents Bank has initiated proceedings under the

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.4037 of 2022

¶27

SARFAESI Act, by issuing demand notice dated 24.02.2020 and possession notice dated 08.09.2020. In the meantime, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, held at Tirunelveli and assigned as Case No.24. Before the Lok Adalat, a settlement was arrived at between the parties to an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- as such, initial amount of Rs.1000/- was paid. As per the award dated 22.03.2021, the petitioner has paid the 1^st installment of Rs.5,30,000/- in time, by way of cheque and got endorsement for the payment from the said bank. Thereafter, due to COVID-19, the second installment was not paid. Therefore, the respondents bank has initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid prayer.

¶28

3 . The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents Bank submitted that the petitioner has breached the condition imposed by the Lok Adalat and now filed the present Writ Petition, seeking extension of time for remitting the balance amount of Rs.13,69,000/-. Therefore, this Writ Petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.4037 of 2022

¶33

4 . On a perusal of the records, it is seen that this Court, by order dated 18.11.2022, directed the petitioner to submit a proposal for payment of interest and on such proposal, the same be considered by the respondents bank, within two weeks thereafter. However, the petitioner has not placed any materials before this Court to show that either he has made a proposal to the bank or he has made the payment of the remaining amount, as per the award passed by the Lok Adalat, dated 22.03.2021. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any legal right to file the present Writ Petition, seeking extension of time to remit the balance amount of Rs.13,69,000/-.

¶34

5 . In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

[D.K.K., J.] [R.V., J.]

¶36

12.12.2022

¶37

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsm

¶38

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.4037 of 2022

¶41

¶42

1.The Authorized Officer, Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd., 4^th Floor, Phaseil, Spencerplaza, No.769, Mount Road, Annasalai, Chennai.

¶43

2.The Manager, Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd., Rajakkamangalam Road, Ramanputhoor, Simon Nagar, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶44

Page 5 of 6

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD) No.4037 of 2022

¶47

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. and R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶48

vsm

¶49

W.P.(MD) No.4037 of 2022

¶50

12.12.2022

¶51

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶52

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

Ramesh.M v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh.M v. the Authorized Officer

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

Anbalagan.C Vs the Union of India

M/s. Kanthan Bio Tech Vs The Authorised Officer

S.Muthu Irulappa Vaithyar Alais Muthukumar, Vs M.Lingammal Alais Soumiyasundari

Charles D. Jayaseelan Vs Indian Bank

S.R.Ratheesh Vs the Secretary

Renganathan.P Vs The Authorized Officer