Dismissed

B.Satheesh v. the Regional Director

Madras HC18 Jul 2023WA/1730/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal filed under Letters Patent against a writ directing a bank to shift interest rates. The court held writings jurisdiction was not warranted for such disputes, especially where the bank had initiated SARFAESI action, and disposed without deciding on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal disposed of without order as to costs; appeal not decided on merits.

B.Satheesh Vs the Regional Director — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.A.No.1730 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

W.A.No.1730 of 2023

B.Satheesh

.. Appellant

Vs.

The Regional Director Reserve Bank of India Rajaji Salai, Chennai.

¶12

The Chairman Corporation Bank Head Office, Mangala Devi Temple Road P.B.No.88, Mangalore – 575 001.

¶13

The Manager Corporation Bank Whites Road, Chennai – 600 014. .. Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 26.10.2022 in W.P.No.16446 of 2017.

¶15

For the Appellant : Ms.Ambili Menon.P

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

W.A.No.1730 of 2023

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The impugned writ petition was filed before the learned Single

¶21

Judge by the appellant seeking a direction against the Bank to shift the petitioner's loan account from fixed rate of interest to floating rate of interest with effect from May, 2009 and to consequentially recalculate the EMI by applying the floating rate of interest from May, 2009.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

¶23

agreement between the parties provided for change of scheme from fixed rate of interest to floating rate of interest. The Bank was duty bound to apply the same. The appellant has been running from pillar to post but it was of no avail. The appellant approached the Banking Ombudsman, however, the Banking Ombudsman did not take cognizance of the complaint given by the appellant. Earlier also, the appellant approached this Court. This Court directed the parties to settle the dispute. In the impugned order also, this Court has directed for settlement and if settlement is not arrived within

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

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

¶26

W.A.No.1730 of 2023

¶27

one week, granted liberty to the Bank to proceed.

¶28

The appellant could not have invoked the writ jurisdiction for the relief as sought. The Bank had already initiated action under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by issuing demand notice. The same finds place in the affidavit filed by the appellant.

¶29

In case, action is initiated by the Bank under the Act, all defences are available with the appellant to be raised while defending the action of the Bank under Section 13(4) of the Act.

¶30

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is ready to settle the amount as per the account given by the Bank.

¶31

Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for such purposes. If the

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

W.A.No.1730 of 2023

¶35

parties have decided to settle the dispute, they are entitled to settle it. However, Court's interference in the matter on the present set of facts is not warranted.

¶36

The appellant is free to approach the Banking Ombudsman and if the appellant approaches the Banking Ombudsman, it is for the Banking Ombudsman to take appropriate decision on the complaint of the appellant.

¶37

With these observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. It is made clear that the appeal is not decided on merits, the contentions of the appellant are kept open. Consequently, C.M.P.No.15279 of 2023 is closed.

¶38

(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.) 18.07.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶39

drm

¶40

Page 4 of 6

¶41

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

¶42

W.A.No.1730 of 2023

¶43

¶44

The Regional Director Reserve Bank of India Rajaji Salai, Chennai.

¶45

Page 5 of 6

¶46

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

¶47

W.A.No.1730 of 2023

¶48

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.

(drm)

W.A.No.1730 of 2023

18.07.2023

Page 6 of 6

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

B.Satheesh v. the Regional Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Satheesh v. the Regional Director

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

R.Ramesh Vs P.Murugan

Tamilnadu Recognized Private Vs the State of Tamilnadu

N.Selvaraj Vs Union of India

L.Mary Vs The District Collector

S.Meena, Vs The Arcil

K.K.Ramesh Vs The Government of India