Disposed

D.Nalini v. The Chief Manager

Madras HC22 Aug 2024WP/6605/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A former bank employee sought release of title deeds deposited for home loans after claiming full repayment and unilateral adjustment of PF contributions. The Court declined to decide merits and directed the petitioner to make a representation within two weeks; the bank was to consider and pass orders on merits within four weeks thereafter. Petition disposed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks; no merits decided, no costs.

D.Nalini Vs The Chief Manager — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.6605 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.08.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

Writ Petition No.6605 of 2021

¶7

D.Nalini ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Texco Srinagar Colony, Chennai – 600 118.

¶10

2.The Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Coimbatore Main Branch, 1218 Big Bazaar Street,

¶11

Coimbatore 641 001. … Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to release the Title Deeds of the Schedule property.

¶13

For Respondents : No Appearance

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner has filed this petition to direct the respondent to release

¶16

the Title Deeds of the Schedule property.

¶17

Page No.1 of 5

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.6605 of 2021

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that he was the previous employee of the respondent bank and during his employment as Manager, he obtained a home loan, staff vehicle loan and other loan. Thereafter, he was dismissed from the bank's service with effect from 28.02.2015 alleging that he had committed acts of fraud. At the time of his dismissal, his loan outstanding with the bank was to the tune of Rs.14 lakhs. This being the case, the respondents had unilaterally debited his PF contribution from his account without getting any consent and adjusted his entire PF contribution to one of the loan accounts. Moreover, the petitioner is repaying his loan by paying monthly installment of Rs.30,000/- and also paid monthly installments of Rs.20,000/- till November 2019. But, the respondents have issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Thereafter, the petitioner has settled the entire liability to the bank. Even after the repayment of the home loan, the title deed document of the petitioner was not released. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court may permit the petitioner to give a representation before the respondents and shall direct the respondents to consider the same on merits and in accordance with

¶22

Page No.2 of 5

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.6605 of 2021

¶25

law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

¶27

Taking into consideration the factual aspects of the matter, this Court

¶28

without going into the merits of the case, issues following directions:

¶29

(i) petitioner is directed to give a representation to the respondents

¶30

along with the copy of this order, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

(ii) On receipt of such representation, the respondents are directed to

¶32

consider and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶33

With the above observation and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶34

22.08.2024

¶35

vm Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No

¶36

Page No.3 of 5

¶37

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

W.P.No.6605 of 2021

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

To:

1.The Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Texco Srinagar Colony, Chennai – 600 118.

¶43

2.The Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Coimbatore Main Branch, 1218 Big Bazaar Street, Coimbatore 641 001.

¶44

W.P.No.6605 of 2021

¶45

Page No.4 of 5

¶46

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

W.P.No.6605 of 2021

22.08.2024

Page No.5 of 5

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

D.Nalini v. The Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Nalini v. The Chief 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

M.Suresh Vs The Branch Manager

Tmt.T.Muthulakshmi, Vs the Commissioner

Karthik Sabanayagam Vs The Union of India

M/s. Kalaimahal Educational Trust Vs Union of India

Santhosh.v Vs Union of India

K.Vinoth Vs the District Collector