Madras High Court
M/S.Oxford Engineering College vs State Bank Of India At on 7 January, 2016
Bench: V.Ramasubramanian, N.Kirubakaran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.01.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
Writ Appeal (MD) No.480 of 2013
& M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014
& Writ Appeal (MD) No.481 of 2013 & M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014
W.A (MD) No.480 of 2013:-
M/s.Oxford Engineering College,
Rep.by its Authorized Signatory
Chairman and Managing Trustee M.Subramanian,
Piratiyur West,
Karumandapam,
Trichy District. ...Appellant/Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs.
State Bank of India at
RASMEC CC,
Rep.by its Chief Manager,
Second Floor,
Administrative Unit,
Cantonment,
Trichy. ...Respondent/Respondent/
Respondent
Petition filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside
the order dated 25.04.2013 passed in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013 in W.P(MD)No.9190
of 2012.
W.A (MD) No.481 of 2013:-
M/s.Jayaram College of Engineering and Technology,
Rep.by its Authorized Signatory,
Chairman and Managing Trustee M.Subramanian,
Karattampatti, Thuraiyur,
Trichy District. ... Appellant/Petitioner/
Respondent
-vs-
State Bank of India at
RASMEC CC,
Rep.by its Chief Manager,
Second Floor,
Administrative Unit,
Cantonment,
Trichy. ...Respondent/Respondent/
Respondent
Petition filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside
the order dated 25.04.2013 in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013 in W.P(MD)No.9191 of 2012.
!For Appellants
in both WAs :Ms.J.Anandhavalli
^For Respondent
in both WAs :Mr.S.Sethuraman
:COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J) The writ appeals arise out of the dismissal of the applications for extension of time to comply with the original order passed in two writ petitions.
2. Heard Ms.J.Anandhavalli, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.S.Sethuraman, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank.
3.The appellants are Self-Financing Engineering Colleges. The respondent Bank advanced loan to the students of the appellants Colleges for the purchase of Laptops. The appellants guaranteed for due repayment of the loan. Despite collecting the money from the students, the appellants failed to remit the money into the bank, forcing the bank to initiate proceedings for the recovery.
4. As a first step, the bank wanted to publish the names of the appellants as defaulters. Immediately the appellants came up with two writ petitions in W.P(MD)Nos.9190 and 9191 of 2012, seeking a Mandamus to direct the bank not to publish the names of the petitioners in any mode. The writ petitions were actually liable to be dismissed in view of the decision of this Court in K.J.Doraisamy -vs- The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Erode Branch, Erode-638 001 reported in 2006 (5) CTC 829 which was passed by one of us and the same was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court.
5. However, the learned Judge took a sympathetic approach when the appellants filed a Memo stating that they would pay the amounts due in installments. Therefore, the writ petitions were allowed by an order dated 09.01.2013. The operative portion of the order in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the learned Judge reads as follows:
"4. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the petitioner has filed a memo stating that a sum of Rs.1,69,40,274/- is due to the respondent bank. The petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as per the order of this Court and Rs.5,00,000/- after the filing of the writ petition at the time of giving a proposal for Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) as one time settlement amount and 8 students who have left the college have paid a sum of Rs.3,56,000/-. Therefore, the balance amount of Rs.1,35,84,274/- is payable by the petitioner. The petitioner has also drawn 6 cheques in the State Bank of India, Commercial Branch bearing Cheque Nos.122239 to 122244 (starting from 10.11.2012 to April 2013) for a sum of Rs.1,35,84,274/- as one time settlement amount.
5.Learned Counsel for the respondent bank has also accepted the receipt of six cheques. However, learned Counsel for the respondent bank submitted that the petitioner has to pay interest till the date of payment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also agreed for the same. The said submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is placed on record."
6. Pursuant to the said order, cheques were issued by the appellants. Out of five cheques, only one cheque was honoured and rest of them were dishonoured. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, have been initiated and they are pending.
7. Thereafter, the appellants came up with two miscellaneous petitions seeking extension of time and both the miscellaneous petitions were dismissed by the learned Judge by an order dated 25.04.2013. It is against the said order, the appellants are before us.
8. We see absolutely no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. After having agreed before this Court to make payment and after issuing cheques towards the honouring of the said commitment if the appellants had defaulted, they cannot seek any equity from this Court. As a matter of fact, this is a money that the appellants have recovered from students, but not paid to the bank. Therefore, these writ appeals are completely devoid of merits and accordingly these writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
TO The State Bank of India at RASMEC CC, Rep.by its Chief Manager, Second Floor, Administrative Unit, Cantonment, Trichy. .