Dismissed¶27

M/s. Manoj Tourist Travels v. The Authorized Officer

Writ of Mandamus – One Time Settlement (OTS) – Article 226

Madras HC11 Jun 2026WP(MD)/15866/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; W.P(MD)No.15866 of 2026; One Time Settlement; OTS; writ of mandamus; Article 226; no statutory provision; bank's commercial decision; defaulting borrower; Fedbank Financial Services Limited; Authorized Officer; SARFAESI proceedings; S.A.No.277/2026; Debts Recovery Tribunal Madurai; interim stay; representation dated 13.05.2026; mandamus refused; writ petition dismissed; no costs; N. Sathish Kumar J.; M. Jothiraman J.; 11.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

Such a mandamus will not lie: when there is no statutory provision, the Constitutional Court cannot exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution to provide/direct a fresh One Time Settlement. ¶20

M/s. Manoj Tourist Travels Vs The Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus can issue under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the respondent (Authorized Officer, M/s. Fedbank Financial Services Limited) to consider the petitioners' representation dated 13.05.2026 for a fresh, reasonable One Time Settlement (OTS). +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Applying the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Courts cannot use their writ powers to force a bank to grant or extend a One-Time Settlement; OTS benefits are the bank's commercial decision and cannot be claimed as a matter of right by a defaulting borrower.

¶20

Key takeaways

Since the petitioners had already challenged the SARFAESI proceedings in S.A.No.277/2026 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, and obtained interim stay subject to payment of a certain amount, they cannot, as a matter of right, invoke the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction for OTS.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of Mandamus – One Time Settlement (OTS) – Article 226 – Petitioners (borrowers/proprietor of M/s. Manoj Tourist Travels) sought a mandamus directing the Authorized Officer of M/s. Fedbank Financial Services Limited to consider their representation dated 13.05.2026 for a fresh, reasonable OTS. Held: (i) such a mandamus will not lie – absent a statutory provision, the Constitutional Court cannot exercise its power under Article 226 to provide a fresh OTS; (ii) as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Courts cannot use writ powers to force a bank to grant or extend an OTS – OTS benefits are the bank's commercial decision and cannot be claimed as a matter of right by a defaulting borrower; (iii) the petitioners had already challenged the SARFAESI proceedings in S.A.No.277/2026 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, and obtained interim stay subject to payment of a certain amount, and therefore could not invoke this Court's jurisdiction as of right for an OTS direction. Writ Petition dismissed with no costs; WMP(MD)No.11880 of 2026 (permission to file a single writ petition) ordered. Bench: N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman, JJ.; order authored by N. Sathish Kumar, J. Dated 11.06.2026.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.15866 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 11.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.15866 of 2026 and WMP(MD)No.11880 of 2026

¶7

M/s. Manoj Tourist Travels, Represented by its Proprietor, Mr.V.Selvam No.20/1, Madurai Theni Main Road, Madurai.

¶8

Mr.V.Selvam 3. Mrs.S.Sumathi 4. Mrs.S.Lavanya 5. Mrs.S.Saranya ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Authorized Officer, M/s. Fedbank Financial Services Limited, No.12, 1^st Floor, Parvathi Plaza, 70 Feet Road, Ellis Nagar, Madurai - 625 016. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.05.2026 for a fresh, reasonable One Time Settlement (OTS).

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ganapathy Subramaniyan

¶13

1/4

¶14

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

¶15

W.P(MD)No.15866 of 2026

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

¶18

WMP(MD)No.11880 of 2026 filed to permit the petitioners to file a single writ petition, is ordered.

¶19

The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.05.2026 for a fresh, reasonable One Time Settlement (OTS).

¶20

We are of the view such a Mandamus will not lie. When there is no statutory provision, the Constitutional Court cannot exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution to provide fresh OTS. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that High Courts cannot use their writ powers to force a bank to grant or extend a One-Time Settlement (OTS). OTS benefits are a bank's commercial decision and cannot be claimed as a matter of right by a defaulting borrower.

¶21

In such a view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Perusal of record indicates that the petitioner has already challenged the SARFAESI proceedings in S.A.No.277/2026 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, and obtained interim stay subject to payment of certain

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

W.P(MD)No.15866 of 2026

¶25

amount. Therefore, as a matter of right, the petitioner cannot invoke the

¶26

jurisdiction of this Court seeking direction for OTS.

¶27