Disposed

Murugan v. The Regional Manager

Madras HC6 Feb 2023WP(MD)/2304/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner requested a One Time Settlement via representation dated 29.09.2022, which the bank had not acted upon. The court directed the bank to consider the representation on merits and pass an appropriate order within four weeks, disposing of the petition at the adm

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Respondents-Bank to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.09.2022 for One Time Settlement on merits and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from receipt of the order

Murugan Vs The Regional Manager — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.2304 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.02.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.2304 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)No.2066 of 2023

Murugan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Regional Manager, Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd., Phase II, 4^th Floor, Spencer Plaza, No.769, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶13

2.The Manager, Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd., 220, 2^nd Floor, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶14

_____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.2304 of 2023

¶17

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to proceed with the action in furtherance to the possession notice which was issued under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 r/w Rule 8 Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 dated 17.10.2022 by the respondent herein and direct the respondents to consider the representation 29.09.2022 for arriving at amicable settlement under One time Settlement Policy.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.Ramanathan

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.B.Baskar, Standing Counsel.

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

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

¶22

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to proceed with the action in furtherance to the possession notice which was issued under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 r/w Rule 8 Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 dated 17.10.2022

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.2304 of 2023

¶26

by the respondent herein and direct the respondents to consider the representation 29.09.2022 for arriving at amicable settlement under One time Settlement Policy.

¶27

2 . Heard Mr.Ramanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶28

Mr.B.Baskar, learned Standing, who takes notice for the respondents.

¶29

3 . By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶30

4 . The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has made a representation on 29.09.2022 to the respondents, seeking to settle the entire outstanding amount under the One Time Settlement Policy. However, the same was not considered by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶31

Page 3 of 6

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.2304 of 2023

¶35

5 . The learned counsel appearing for the respondents – Bank submitted that the representation of the petitioner dated 29.09.2022 will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed in accordance with the norms and Rules, within a time frame.

¶36

6. Considering the limited scope of the prayer, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, this Court directs the respondents – Bank to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.09.2022, on merits and pass appropriate order in accordance with the norms and Rules, within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶38

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

¶39

06.02.2023

¶40

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No vsm

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD) No.2304 of 2023

¶44

¶45

1.The Regional Manager, Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd., Phase II, 4^th Floor, Spencer Plaza, No.769, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶46

2.The Manager, Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd., 220, 2^nd Floor, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai.

¶47

Page 5 of 6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.(MD) No.2304 of 2023

¶50

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

¶51

vsm

¶52

W.P.(MD)No.2304 of 2023

¶53

06.02.2023

¶54

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶55

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

Murugan v. The Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan v. The Regional 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

Jayanthi Mala Vs The District Collector

Rajkumar a Vs The District Collector

Pugalenthi G Vs M/s. Axis Bank Ltd.

Mohamed Muhibullah Vs M/s.Cholamandalam Investment

Tamilarasi Vs The District Collector

Senthilvel.S Vs The Authorised Officer