The writ petition seeking mandamus to direct the bank to consider a one-time settlement was dismissed. The court held that since an arbitral award had already decided the quantum of debt, the bank was under no statutory duty to entertain the settlement representation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP.No.25597/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
WP.No.25597/2024
G.Vijaya Kumar Babu
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Manager Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd Srinivasa Bavan, 3rd Floor 1050/1, Avinashi Road Coimbatore 641018.
3.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd Registered Office 27 BKC, C27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra [E] Mumbai 400 051.
... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
1
WP.No.25597/2024
issuance of Writ of mandamus directing the respondents Bank to consider the representation dated 31.07.2024 for One Time Settlement into the tune of Rs.32,00,000/- towards the debts in the Loan A/c No.HF-26742394 and HF37317311 and for the closure of the said loan accounts with the respondent bank.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Parthasarathy
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,] (1)The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a
writ of mandamus to direct the respondents Bank to consider the
petitioner's representation dated 31.07.2024 for One Time Settlement.
(2)Though the petitioner has come forward with an offer that he is prepared
to pay upto Rs.32 lakhs towards the remaining amount, this Court is unable to grant any relief to the petitioner as the petitioner himself admits that the respondents/Bank has obtained an Arbitral Award dated 05.11.2022 wherein the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,53,333.57p. with interest at 18% per annum. It is in the said circumstances, when the quantum has already been decided, this Court cannot direct the respondents/Bank to consider the representation of the
2
WP.No.25597/2024
petitioner for One Time Settlement. It is open to the petitioner to approach the Bank on his own and this Court does not find a legal obligation or a statutory duty on the respondent Bank to consider the petitioner's representation.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [K.R.S., J.] 06.09.2024
AP
Internet : Yes
To 1.The Manager Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd Srinivasa Bavan, 3rd Floor 1050/1, Avinashi Road Coimbatore 641018.
S.S. SUNDAR, J.,
3
WP.No.25597/2024
and K.RAJASEKAR, J.,
AP
WP.No.25597/2024
06.09.2024
4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Bank is under a legal or statutory duty to consider the petitioner's representation for One Time Settlement where an arbitral award has already quantified the debt.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G.Vijaya Kumar Babu
The Manager Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd Srinivasa Bavan
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd
S.S. SUNDAR
K.RAJASEKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
