Disposed

Azarudheen. S v. The Branch Manager

Madras HC12 Oct 2023WP(MD)/477/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought waiver of interest and an NOC having paid principal under a claimed one-time settlement for an educational loan. The court found no valid agreement for such settlement. The court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 25,000 within four weeks to secure an NOC from the bank.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to pay Rs. 25,000 within four weeks with intimation of order to receive No Objection Letter from the bank.

Azarudheen. S Vs The Branch Manager — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.477 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.477 of 2021

S.Azarudheen

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, S.Tharaikudi Branch, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. ...Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to waive off the interest of the petitioner Education Loan A/c. No.3150094950 in the respondent bank for the settled payment of Principal Loan Amount Rs.94,000/- from 22.09.2015 to till the date and consequently further direct to issue the No Objection Letter with in a stipulated time prescribed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner :Mr.S.A.S.Alaudeen For Respondent :Mr.N.Dilip Kumar Standing Counsel

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.477 of 2021

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to waive the interest for the educational loan that was taken by the petitioner from the respondent bank on the ground that the petitioner had availed One Time Settlement and paid the entire principal amount of Rs.94,000/-. Consequently, the petitioner is seeking for No Objection letter from the respondent bank.

¶18

2. The petitioner had availed the educational loan from the respondent bank during the year 2010 and the respondent bank had sanctioned a sum of Rs.94000/- towards educational loan. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was paying the interest on the loan amount till 31.07.2011. At one point of time, the total amount that was due and payable by the petitioner including both principal and interest stood at Rs.1,34,563/- and at that point of time, the petitioner had offered to pay the entire principal amount of Rs.94,000/- as one time settlement and requested the waiver of the interest portion. Accordingly, the petitioner also paid a sum of Rs.94,000/- on 22.09.2015.

¶19

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.(MD) No.477 of 2021

¶21

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent bank was refusing to issue no due letter and the representation made by the petitioner in this regard also did not evoke any response. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.

¶22

4. When the matter came up for hearing on 10.10.2023, this Court directed Mr.Dilipkumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent to take notice on behalf of the respondent bank and to take instructions from the respondent bank. The matter was accordingly posted for hearing today.

¶23

5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent bank based on the instructions and after going through the records, submitted that there was no offer made by the respondent bank for one time settlement and no such agreement was entered into with the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the settlement of the sum of Rs.94,000/- by the petitioner, will not release the petitioner from the payment of the loan amount with interest. The learned counsel further

¶24

3/6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.477 of 2021

¶27

submitted that the amount payable by the petitioner as on today works out a sum of Rs.59,686/-. It was further submitted that the respondent bank is willing to give one time settlement offer to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- and on such payment, the respondent bank is inclined to issue no objection letter to the petitioner.

¶28

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner wants to give a quietus to this issue and therefore, the petitioner is willing to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent bank.

¶29

7. In the light of the above submissions, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to settle the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such settlement, the respondent bank shall issue no objection letter in favour of the petitioner. If the petitioner fails to make this payment, one time offer made by the respondent bank will lapse and the petitioner has to pay the entire amount due and payable to the respondent bank.

¶30

4/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.477 of 2021

¶33

8. This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No

¶34

costs.

¶35

12.10.2023

¶36

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No SM

¶37

¶38

1.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, S.Tharaikudi Branch, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶39

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.477 of 2021

¶41

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶42

¶43

Order made in W.P(MD)No.477 of 2021

¶44

Dated 12.10.2023

¶45

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Azarudheen. S v. The Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azarudheen. S v. The Branch Manager

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

N.Sermadurai Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Amirthavalli.B Vs the Dist. Collector

Lilly.a Vs the District Collector

Sakthivel. M Vs The District Collector

Jegadeesan. R Vs The District Collector

Ramzan Jailani Vs the Superintendent Engineer