Madras High Court
Dr.C.Sivaprakasam vs The General Manager on 4 September, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
W.P.No.11882 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 04.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.11882 of 2020 &
W.M.P.No. 14595 of 2020
Dr.C.Sivaprakasam Petitioner
Versus
1. The General Manager
Banking Operations Department,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
No.3765, 763, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002
2. The Assistant General Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Mount Road Branch,
807, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002
3. The Chief Executive,
Indian Bank's Association,
World Trade Centre, 6th Floor,
Centre I Building,
Cuff Parade, Mumbai – 400 005
4. M/s Natarajan Associates,
D.No.81, Dr.Lakshmanasamy Salai,
K.K.Nagar, Chennai – 600 078 Respondents
[4th respondent given up vide order
dated 05.07.2021 made in W.P.No.11882 of 2020
By RMDJ]
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 08:17:10 pm )
W.P.No.11882 of 2020
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records of the 1st respondent in letter no.CO/BOD/43/2015-16 dated
03.03.2016 and quash the same as illegal and direct the 3rd respondent to
remove the petitioner's name from the caution list.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.F.B.Benjmin for R1 and R2
R3- Not ready notice.
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in
letter no.CO/BOD/43/2015-16 dated 03.03.2016 and quash the same as
illegal and direct the 3rd respondent to remove the petitioner's name from
the caution list.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is Doctorate
of Philosophy in civil engineering and working as an engineer, property
valuer and empaneled in various banks. The petitioner also worked with
4th respondent herein, who is also authorised property valuers in the panel
of Indian Overseas Bank and the petitioner has never been as a partner or
director of the 4th respondent herein. The petitioner had worked as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 08:17:10 pm )
valuer for a period of one year only and was relieved on 30.12.2012.
While so, the 4th respondent submitted certain valuation report and
thereafter, based on the report, the respondent-bank sanctioned loan.
Further, it was found that the loan account was Non performing Asset
and later, the bank came to the conclusion that there was conspiracy
among the borrower, 4th respondent and others, thereafter, a complaint
was lodged, however, petitioner's name does not find place. Thereafter,
the respondent-bank issued show cause notice on 01.11.2013, though the
petitioner submitted detailed explanation, it was not considered and
impugned order is passed indicating that the petitioner is also involved in
frauds, hence the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
respondent-Bank claim that the petitioner has not properly valued the
property thereby committed fraud, hence the respondent-Bank issued a
communication to the IBA for the alleged involvement of petitioner's
fraud and to declare that the petitioner is fraud for the alleged improper
value vide impugned communication dated 03.03.2016 and for
revocation of the said communication dated 03.03.2016, the petitioner
made a representation dated 05.09.2016, and a one line order was passed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 08:17:10 pm )
on 28.09.2016 by the Bank, however no detail order was passed, further,
it is a non-speaking order, thereby pleaded to pass detail order on the
representation made by the petitioner.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents-Bank
would submit that a detailed order will be passed based on the
petitioner's representation dated 05.09.2016. Therefore, this Court may
issue a direction to the 1st respondent to pass a detailed order with regard
to the petitioner's representation dated 05.09.2016 within a period, as
specified by this court.
5. Considering the above said facts and circumstances of the
case and taking note of the fact that one line order has been passed based
on the representation of the petitioner and the submission of the learned
counsel for the respodents that a detailed order will be passed, this Court
is inclined to direct the 1st respondent to pass a detailed order on merits
and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In view of the above, the present Writ Petition is disposed of.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 08:17:10 pm )
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
04.09.2025
Index:Yes/No;
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking /Non speaking Judgment
ssd
To
1. The General Manager
Banking Operations Department,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
No.3765, 763, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002
2. The Assistant General Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Mount Road Branch,
807, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002
3. The Chief Executive,
Indian Bank's Association,
World Trade Centre, 6th Floor,
Centre I Building,
Cuff Parade, Mumbai – 400 005
M.DHANDAPANI, J.,
ssd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 08:17:10 pm )
04.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 08:17:10 pm )
