Disposed

S.Karthikeyan v. the State Bank of India

Madras HC3 Sept 2024WP/7434/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus for consideration of valuer empanelment application returned by the bank. The court directed the respondent to consider the application on merits and pass orders within two weeks after affording a hearing, disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for empanelment of valuers and pass appropriate orders within two weeks.

S.Karthikeyan Vs the State Bank of India — Madras HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.No.7434 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03.09.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.7434 of 2024

¶7

S.Karthikeyan ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State Bank of India, Rep. by its Chairman, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 021.

¶10

Also at: C.C.O. Department, Local Head Office, “Circletop House”, Group Floor, 16, College Lane, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.

¶11

Also at: Regional Business Office-2, Network-3, Administrative Office, Kurinji Complex, State Bank Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. ...Respondent

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for empanelment of valuers dated 06.01.2023 for the

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.7434 of 2024

¶16

forthcoming terms on merits and dispose of the same.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.Dissa Prashanth for Mr.Gowtham Thelak.V.B

¶18

For Respondent : Mr.ML.Ganesh

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for empanelment of valuers dated 06.01.2023 for the forthcoming terms on merits and dispose of the same within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is a valuer registered under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India and he is a valuer in the respondent's panel of valuers since 2014 and he has been empanelled in several other banks in Tamil Nadu. While so, in the year 2022, the TMB Bank delisted the petitioner from its panel citing alleged inflated valuation reports submitted by him and it also caused his name to be added to the IBA Third party caution list. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.22980 of

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.7434 of 2024

¶25

2022 and this Court, vide order dated 20.09.2023 directed the IBA to remove the petitioner's name from the caution list. In the meanwhile, the respondent invited fresh applications for valuers through a public notice for the next three years ie., till 2026 and the petitioner also submitted his application dated 06.01.2023. Despite the above said order of this Court for removal of the petitioner's name from the caution list, the petitioner's application was returned vide an internal correspondence dated 28.06.2023 holding that the petitioner's name is found in the caution list. Thereafter, upon intimating the branch officials of the respondent about the above said order of this Court dated 20.09.2023, the petitioner's application was forwarded to the Regional Office, vide letter dated 02.11.2023. However, subsequently, the petitioner's application was returned to the petitioner stating that the deadline for the application as per the public notice had expired and therefore, the petitioner's application cannot be considered. Hence, the petitioner has come up with this Writ petition.

¶26

Though very many grounds have been raised, learned counsel for

¶27

3/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.7434 of 2024

¶30

the petitioner submitted that it would suffice if this Court issues direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 06.01.2023 and

¶31

pass orders on the same within a particular time frame fixed by this Court.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has no objection for the said order being passed and he fairly conceded that the petitioner's application dated 06.01.2023 will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶33

In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case directs the respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 06.01.2023 on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and aggrieved persons, if any.

¶34

4/6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.7434 of 2024

¶37

Accordingly, this Writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶38

03.09.2024

¶39

skt

¶40

Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No

¶41

To:

¶42

The State Bank of India, Rep. by its Chairman, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 021.

¶43

Also at: C.C.O. Department, Local Head Office, “Circletop House”, Group Floor, 16, College Lane, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.

¶44

Also at: Regional Business Office-2, Network-3, Administrative Office, Kurinji Complex, State Bank Road, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶45

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

5/6

W.P.No.7434 of 2024

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

skt

W.P.No.7434 of 2024

03.09.2024

6/6

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

S.Karthikeyan v. the State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Karthikeyan v. the State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Managing Director, Vs the Chairman

Syed Mohamed Kalifa Vs The Managing Trustee

Bharati Axa Life Insurance Company Ltd. Vs The Insurance Ombudsman

Devendra Kula Sri Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

R.KannanBhattar, Archakar, Vs The Commissioner

B.Dhandayudhapani Vs the Commissioner