Madras High Court
B.Satheesh vs The Regional Director on 18 July, 2023
W.A.No.1730 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.07.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.A.No.1730 of 2023
B.Satheesh .. Appellant
Vs.
1. The Regional Director
Reserve Bank of India
Rajaji Salai, Chennai.
2. The Chairman
Corporation Bank
Head Office, Mangala Devi Temple Road
P.B.No.88, Mangalore – 575 001.
3. The Manager
Corporation Bank
Whites Road, Chennai – 600 014. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 26.10.2022 in W.P.No.16446 of 2017.
For the Appellant : Ms.Ambili Menon.P
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1730 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The impugned writ petition was filed before the learned Single
Judge by the appellant seeking a direction against the Bank to shift
the petitioner's loan account from fixed rate of interest to floating
rate of interest with effect from May, 2009 and to consequentially
recalculate the EMI by applying the floating rate of interest from
May, 2009.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
agreement between the parties provided for change of scheme from
fixed rate of interest to floating rate of interest. The Bank was duty
bound to apply the same. The appellant has been running from
pillar to post but it was of no avail. The appellant approached the
Banking Ombudsman, however, the Banking Ombudsman did not
take cognizance of the complaint given by the appellant. Earlier
also, the appellant approached this Court. This Court directed the
parties to settle the dispute. In the impugned order also, this Court
has directed for settlement and if settlement is not arrived within
one week, granted liberty to the Bank to proceed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1730 of 2023
3. The appellant could not have invoked the writ jurisdiction
for the relief as sought. The Bank had already initiated action under
Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by issuing
demand notice. The same finds place in the affidavit filed by the
appellant.
4. In case, action is initiated by the Bank under the Act, all
defences are available with the appellant to be raised while
defending the action of the Bank under Section 13(4) of the Act.
5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the
appellant is ready to settle the amount as per the account given by
the Bank.
6. Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for such purposes. If the
parties have decided to settle the dispute, they are entitled to settle
it. However, Court's interference in the matter on the present set of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1730 of 2023
facts is not warranted.
7. The appellant is free to approach the Banking Ombudsman
and if the appellant approaches the Banking Ombudsman, it is for
the Banking Ombudsman to take appropriate decision on the
complaint of the appellant.
8. With these observations, the writ appeal is disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs. It is made clear that the appeal is
not decided on merits, the contentions of the appellant are kept
open.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
18.07.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
drm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1730 of 2023
To
1. The Regional Director
Reserve Bank of India
Rajaji Salai, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1730 of 2023
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(drm)
W.A.No.1730 of 2023
18.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
