Madras High Court
M/S.Agalya Fly Ash Bricks vs )The General Manager on 24 August, 2021
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee, M.Duraiswamy
W.P.(MD)No.11216 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.08.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
W.P.(MD) No.11216 of 2019
M/s.Agalya Fly Ash Bricks,
Represented by its Proprietor K.Sivakumar ... Petitioner
vs.
1)The General Manager,
Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank,
Head Office,
Thoothukudi.
2)The Regional Manager,
Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank,
Regional Office,
Chinnachokkikulam,
Madurai.
3)The Branch Manager,
Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank,
Oddanchathiram Branch,
Oddanchathiram,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant one time
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11216 of 2019
settlement offer to the petitioner towards the petitioner loan account No.
271700050900006 maintained at 3rd respondent branch in terms of RBI
guidelines.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali
For R1 : No appearance
For R2 & R3 : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice] This petition is utterly misconceived and a mischievous attempt by a defaulting borrower to expect a secured creditor to double jeopardy since the petitioner is simultaneously approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal and has obtained orders in respect of the measures taken by the respondent secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002.
2.The recalcitrance on defaulting borrowers in the country knows no bounds and courts come to the aid of defaulting borrower more often than its desirable. It has almost become the habit for a borrower to obtain credit facilities not repay and expect some amount of rebate to be granted by a 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.11216 of 2019 court. This misplaced sympathy on the part of the court causes greater injustice.
3.It raises a premium on the unfair and the defaulter while other similarly placed borrowers suffer for simply not having approached the Court.
4.The petition is for the secured creditor to consider a one time settlement offer made by the petitioner. There is no law-atleast none which enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution-which obliges a creditor to consider any offer of settlement or any dilution of the creditor's statutory or natural right. The very audacity of the writ petitioner to approach the Court speaks ill of the practice that may have developed in the court.
5.At any rate, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents secured creditor that the concerned request was promptly dealt with and a reply duly served on the petitioner. However, that is besides the point. The petitioner has already carried the matter to Debt Recovery Tribunal and, in all fairness, should have abandoned the writ petition, even if there may have been some cause to bring it in the first place.
3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.11216 of 2019
6.W.P(MD)No.1216 of 2019 is dismissed with cost at Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the secured creditor which the secured creditor is entitled to recover along with its other dues. The Debt Recovery Tribunal would do well to take up the relevant petition as expeditiously as possible so that these defaulting creditor cannot take advantage of the courts' delay to continue the default.
7.There shall be no order as to costs.
(S.B., CJ.) (M.D., J.)
24.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
bala
4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11216 of 2019
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
bala/pm
ORDER MADE IN
W.P(MD)No.11216 of 2019
DATED : 24.08.2021
5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/