Disposed

Lenin.M v. The Authorised Officer

Madras HC10 Jan 2023WP(MD)/324/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash an auction notice and direct the bank to consider a one-time settlement proposal. The court, on consent, directed the petitioner to pay two installments totaling Rs. 8 lakhs conditionally permitting the submission of an OTS proposal for the balance.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to pay Rs.4,00,000 on or before 12.01.2023 and Rs.4,00,000 on or before 31.01.2023; permitted to submit OTS proposal for remainder.

Lenin.M Vs The Authorised Officer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.324 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.324 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)No.317 of 2023

M.Lenin

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Authorized Officer,

¶12

Karur Vysya Bank Limited,

¶13

Madurai.

¶14

2.The Chief Manager,

¶15

Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Karur.

¶16

3.The Branch Manager,

¶17

Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Kothamangalam Branch, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD) No.324 of 2023

¶21

PRAYER:

¶22

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the auction notice dated 07.12.2022 issued by the 1^st respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the proposal for one time settlement for the above said loan.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Baalasundharam For Respondents : Mr.V.Sugumar, Standing Counsel

¶24

ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

Challenging the auction notice dated 07.12.2022 issued by the 1^st respondent, this Writ Petition is filed with a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the proposal for OTS for the loan borrowed from the Bank.

¶27

2.When the matter was taken up for admission on 06.01.2023, the

¶28

learned counsel for the petitioner has given an undertaking before this Court that the petitioner is ready to pay 25% of the outstanding amount ie., Rs.34,70,063/-

¶29

Page 2 of 5

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.324 of 2023

¶32

(Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Seventy Thousand and Sixty Three Only), which comes to Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) to the respondent Bank, for which, the petitioner is ready to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) on or before 12.01.2023 and the remaining sum of Rs.4,00,000/- within a period of two weeks thereafter. He further submitted that for the remaining amount, the petitioner may be permitted to submit a proposal for OTS to the respondent Bank. Therefore, he was directed to file an undertaking affidavit before this Court to that extent.

¶33

3.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel

¶34

for the petitioner has filed an undertaking affidavit and a copy of the same has also been served to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank.

¶35

4.In view of the above, with consent of both parties, we are inclined to pass the following order:-

¶36

“(i)The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-

¶37

to the respondent Bank on or before 12.01.2023 and a further sum of

¶38

Page 3 of 5

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.324 of 2023

¶41

Rs.4,00,000/- will be paid on or before 31.01.2023;

¶42

(ii)Thereafter, he is permitted to submit a proposal for OTS

¶43

to the respondent Bank for the remaining amount;

¶44

(iii)On receipt of such proposal, the respondent Bank shall

¶45

consider the same and pass appropriate orders as per the rules as early as possible.

¶46

(iv)It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to make any

¶47

one of the aforesaid amounts within the time stipulated above, the respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.”

¶48

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

¶49

[D.K.K., J.] & [R.V., J.] 10.01.2023

¶50

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MYR

¶51

Page 4 of 5

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.(MD) No.324 of 2023

¶54

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.

¶55

MYR

¶56

W.P.(MD)No.324 of 2023

¶57

10.01.2023

¶58

Page 5 of 5

¶59

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

Lenin.M v. The Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lenin.M v. The Authorised Officer

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

Siva Perumal .N Vs The District Collector

Gnanavel T Vs The District Collector

Ranjith Kumar Vs The District Collector

Johnsirajam.C Vs The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayat

Veeramani Vs The District Collector

Vijaya Bharathi. K Vs State of Tamil Nadu