Disposed

M.Suresh v. The Branch Manager

Madras HC21 Aug 2024WP/18425/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging non-disbursement of loan by bank despite recommendation by housing corporation. Court directed the Bank to consider the petitioner's representation and decide on merits within four weeks, disposing of the petition without examining merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to first respondent to consider representation dated 22.02.2021 and pass appropriate orders on merits within four weeks.

M.Suresh Vs The Branch Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.18425 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.18425 of 2022

¶7

M.Suresh ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs. 1. The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Kalambur Branch, 10A, Arni to Polur Road, Kalambur, Polur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai.

¶9

2.The District Manager, District Manager's Office, Tamil Nadu Adhi Dharavidar, Housing Development Corporation (TAHDCO), Tiruvannamalai. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to disburse the loan in pursuant to the orders of the second respondent in

¶11

Page 1 of 6

¶12

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

¶13

W.P.No.18425 of 2022

¶14

Na.Ka.No.TAHDCO-2019-20-EDP-TM-7 dated 22.07.2020, by passing appropriate orders in the petitioner's representation dated 22.02.2021, within a time frame.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.P.G.Thiyagu For Respondents : Mr.Saravana Prakash for R1 No-appearance for R2

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to disburse the loan in pursuant to the order dated 22.07.2020 passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.TAHDCO-2019-20-EDP-TM-7 and pass appropriate orders in the petitioner's representation dated 22.02.2021, within a time fixed by this Court.

¶18

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner applied for loan

¶19

with the second respondent and the second respondent accepted the loan application of the petitioner and recommended the same to the first respondent to grant loan to the petitioner. The first respondent, vide letter

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.No.18425 of 2022

¶23

dated 22.02.2021, directed the petitioner to appear in person with all relevant papers and therefore, he appeared before the first respondent will all the documents, however, the first respondent insisted the petitioner to execute two sureties as third parties and not being blood relatives and has not disbursed the loan amount. Hence, the petitioner has made a representation dated 22.02.2021, however, the same has not been considered. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to dispose of the application of the petitioner, dated 22.02.2021, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has no

¶26

serious objection for such an order being passed by this Court.

¶27

_________ Page 3 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.18425 of 2022

¶30

Considering the limited request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, without going into the merits of the matter, directs the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 22.02.2021 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No

¶32

costs.

¶33

21.08.2024

¶34

NCC: Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No ssb

¶35

_________ Page 4 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.18425 of 2022

¶38

¶39

The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Kalambur Branch, 10A, Arni to Polur Road, Kalambur, Polur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai.

¶40

2.The District Manager, District Manager's Office, Tamil Nadu Adhi Dharavidar, Housing Development Corporation (TAHDCO), Tiruvannamalai.

¶41

_________ Page 5 of 6

¶42

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

W.P.No.18425 of 2022

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

ssb

W.P.No.18425 of 2022

¶47

21.08.2024

¶48

_________ Page 6 of 6

¶49

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

M.Suresh v. The Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Suresh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.E.Rogers India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Senior Deputy Traffic Manager

M/s.Quality Lube products Pvt. Ltd., Vs Joint Director

Tenneco Clean Air India Vs The Union of India

M/s.a.S.K.Earth Movers Vs The Commissioner

R.Karikalan Vs the Executive Engineer

Tmt.T.Muthulakshmi, Vs the Commissioner