Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 4204 (MAD)

Sambros Tex Global v. Chairman, ICICI Bank

2013-12-16

M.JAICHANDREN, M.KALYANASUNDARAM

body2013
JUDGMENT M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for restructuring/rescheduling the loan facility availed by it. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that the 2nd respondent had issued a demand notice, dated 4.7.2013, directing the petitioner to repay the amount of Rs.32 Crores, due to be paid by the petitioner, to the 1st respondent-bank, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. However, the petitioner had sent a reply, dated 25.8.2013, requesting the 2nd respondent to restructure/ reschedule the loan facility availed by it. But the request made by the petitioner had not been considered by the respondents, till date. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 had submitted that the request of the petitioner, by its letter dated 25.8.2013, for restructuring/rescheduling the loan facility availed by it, had been considered and rejected by the 2nd respondent, by its letter dated 2.9.2013. Hence, the relief prayed for, by the petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, cannot be granted and that the Writ Petition has become infructuous. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and on a perusal of the records available, we find that the 2nd respondent, by its letter dated 2.9.2013, had rejected the request of the petitioner, for restructuring/rescheduling the loan facility availed by it. It is also noted that the 1st respondent-bank had initiated proceedings against the petitioner to recover the amounts due from it, by filing an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai. 5. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the relief prayed for, by the petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has become infructuous and the Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. However, it goes without saying that, if further proceedings are initiated against the petitioner, by the 1st respondent-bank, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the same before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law. No costs.