Madras High Court
M/S.Pasummeena Paint Industries vs The Union Of India on 12 October, 2023
W.P.(MD) No.3597 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.3597 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.2921 of 2021
M/s.Pasummeena Paint Industries,
Proprietor P.Senthilmurugan,
Rep. by his Power Agent T.Palaneappan,
S/o.Thirugnanam,
No.115/2-B, Narikkudi Road, (61-D, Thiruchuli Road),
Thiruppuvanam,
Sivagangai District. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Union of India,
Rep. through its Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Financial Services,
3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building,
Sunsad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.
2.The Reserve Bank of India,
Rep. through its Governor,
Central Office Building 18th Floor,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Road,
Mumbai.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.3597 of 2021
3.The Banking Ombudsman,
Reserve Bank of India,
Fort Glacis, Chennai.
4.The Regional Manager,
Formerly Lakshmi Vilas Bank,
At present Development Bank of Singapore Limited.,
Karur Region, Karur.
5.The Branch Manager,
Formerly Lakshmi Vilas Bank,
At present Development Bank of Singapore Limited,
Anna Nagar,
Madurai. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ or Order or Direction or Order
more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 4 and 5 to
re-structure the loan account number of M/s.Pasumeena Paint Industries
and make it as Standard Asset as per the circular of the 2 nd respondent
dated 23-05-2020, 06-08-2020 and the Covid-19 relief scheme issued by
the 1st respondent dated 23-10-2020 within the time fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner :Mr.H.Arumugam
For Respondents :Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy
For R1
:S.I.Muthiah for R4 & R5
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.3597 of 2021
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of mandamus
directing the 4th and 5th respondents to re-structure the loan account of the
petitioner as per the Circulars of the second respondent and considering
the Covid-19 relief scheme.
2. When the matter came up for hearing on 02.07.2021, this Court
passed the following order:-
“Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth
and fifth respondents Bank submitted that the petitioner
has already been informed by the Bank through a letter
dated 03.02.2021 to produce certain documents. According
to the learned counsel for the Bank, the petitioner has not
produced the documents and therefore, the Bank is not in a
position to take any decision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is interested in restructuring the loan and
continuing with the business and therefore, some time limit
can be fixed by this Court to enable the petitioner to meet
the Bank officials.
3. The petitioner, represented by his father, who is
the Power of Attorney agent, shall be present before the
fifth respondent on 09.07.2021 at 11:00 a.m. along with all
the documents that have been mentioned in the letter dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.3597 of 2021
03.02.2021. The respondent Bank shall instruct the learned
counsel appearing for the Bank about the developments
and the decision taken by the Bank. Post this case on
14.07.2021.”
3. Pursuant to the above order, the 4th and 5th respondents bank
made an offer through letter dated 09.02.2022 to the petitioner in the
following terms:-
Settlement Rs.1,05,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore
Amount Five Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only)
Terms of Rs.10.00 lakhs has to be paid
Payment immediately (Inclusive of amount
already paid of Rs.1.81 lakhs) and the
balance amount of Rs.95.50 Lakhs has
to be paid on or before 08.06.2022.
Release of After collection of the settlement
Security amount and withdrawal of WP the
branch shall release the securities, as
per extant norms and circular
instructions.
Irrespective of the source of repayment
of the loan, the title deeds to the
collateral property should be handed
over to the lawful owner / Mortgagor /
Legal heirs / Power agent of the
property with proper authorization
only, against due acknowledgement.
4. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th and 5th respondent bank submitted
that the petitioner did not act upon the one time settlement that was given
by the bank and the one time settlement offer has also lapsed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.3597 of 2021
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner has once again given one time settlement offer to the 4 th
and 5th respondent bank through letter dated 28.09.2023 and has
undertaken to make a final settlement of Rs.90,00,000/- towards full and
final settlement. It is stated that this offer made by the petitioner is
pending before the 4th and 5th respondents.
6. In the considered view of this Court, the matter has gone back
and forth and as a result, the petitioner has not settled the loan amount to
the 4th and 5th respondent bank. Even the one time settlement offer made
by the bank through letter dated 09.02.2022 was not acted upon by the
petitioner. Ultimately, the respondent bank must see the colour of the
coin and there is no use in exchanging letters by making repeated offers
as one time settlement. This Court, exercising its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot compel any bank to act
upon the one time settlement given by any borrower.
7. It is well settled that one time settlement is a contract between
the bank and the borrower and the Court should not be poking its nose by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.3597 of 2021
directing either of the parties to accept it. An useful reference can be
made to the judgment of this Court in the case of M/S.Maruti Acetylene
Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Central Bank Of India reported in 2009 (2) CTC 193. A
reference can also been made to the judgment of this Court in the case of
S.Chockkalingam vs. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of
India, Chennai reported in 2010 (7) MLJ 234.
8. If the petitioner was really genuine to settle the loan amount,
the petitioner ought to have taken advantage of the offer that was made
by the respondent bank through letter dated 09.02.2022. Unfortunately,
the petitioner did not act upon the same and now the petitioner is coming
up with yet another one time settlement offer.
9. The relief as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by
this Court. If the petitioner wants to persuade the bank with any one time
settlement and settle the loan amount, it is left open to the petitioner to
approach the 4th and 5th respondents bank and make an offer. Further, it is
left open to the respondent bank to act upon the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.3597 of 2021
10. This writ petition is disposed in the above terms. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.10.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/ No
SM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.3597 of 2021
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
SM
Order made in
W.P(MD)No.3597 of 2021
Dated
12.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
