Allowed

R.Janardhanam (27 Yrs) v. Lakshmivillas Bank

Madras HC5 Oct 2023WP(MD)/10140/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed in 2016, the petitioner challenged illegal recovery methods including use of harassment by agents employed by the respondent bank. The Supreme Court cited precedent prohibiting the employment of goondas by banks. The petitioner's averments were undisputed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed directing the respondent bank to cease engaging recovery agents or use of illegal methods to recover the loan.

R.Janardhanam (27 Yrs) Vs Lakshmivillas Bank — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP(MD)No.10140 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.10140 of 2016

R.Janarnadhanam

... Petitioner

1.Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Represented by its Chief Manager, Karur West Bank, VV Towers, No.207/5, Kovai Road,

¶11

Karur.

¶12

2.Unique Management Solutions, Represented by its Managing Director, No.12/1, Manikavasagam Street, Fair lands, Salem.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the 1^st respondent from engaging recovery agents or any third parties to follow the illegal method to recover the loan amount from the petitioner and without following the due process of law.

¶15

For petitioner : Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam For Respondents : Mr.S.Balasubramanian for R1

¶16

: No appearance for R2

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

WP(MD)No.10140 of 2016

¶21

The petitioner with a grievance that the 1^st respondent by engaging recovery agents is harassing the petitioner. The recovery agents are adopting illegal methods to recover the loan availed by this petitioner and also without following any process of law.

¶22

2.This writ petition has been filed in the year 2016. Notice was ordered to the respondent Bank in the year 2016. The respondent bank has not disputed the averments made in this writ petition by way of any counter for the past 7 years and there is no representation for the respondent bank.

¶23

3.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manager, ICIC Bank Limited Vs Prakash Kaur and Ors, reported in 2007(2) CTC 334 has held that the bank cannot employ goondas to take possession by force. The relevant portion reads as follows:

¶24

“In conclusion, we say that we are governed by a rule of law in the country. The recovery of loans or seizure of vehicles could be done only through legal means. The Banks cannot employ goondas to taken possession by force.”

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

WP(MD)No.10140 of 2016

¶28

In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the

¶29

averments made in this writ petitions are not disputed by the respondent bank, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.

05.10.2023

dsk

The Chief Manager, Lakshmi Vilas Bank Karur West Bank, VV Towers, No.207/5, Kovai Road, Karur.

¶34

3/4

¶35

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

¶36

WP(MD)No.10140 of 2016

¶37

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶38

dsk

¶39

WP(MD)No.10140 of 2016

¶40

05.10.2023

¶41

4/4

¶42

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

R.Janardhanam (27 Yrs) v. Lakshmivillas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Janardhanam (27 Yrs) v. Lakshmivillas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramachandran Vs The Commissioner

K. Revathy Vs the Asst. Engineer

Vijay Spinners, Ht Sc NO.223 Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity

B.Dhanabalan, Vs the Chairman, Tn Small

U.Lizammal Urmese, Vs the Commissioner

M.Krishnan, Vs the Secretary to Government