Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 451 (MAD)

P. Mohamed Adil v. Assistant General Manager

2014-02-24

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, M.JAICHANDREN

body2014
JUDGMENT K. Kalyanasundaram, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent bank to extend the period of the One Time Settlement, sanctioned by the respondent bank, pertaining to the loan account of M/s. Chennai Prima Leathers. 2. The petitioner has stated that M/s. Chennai Prima Leathers, a partnership firm, had availed certain loan facilities, from the respondent bank. Due to global recession and the subsequent economic meltdown, the said firm was badly affected since 2009-2010 and hence, the firm sold its factory and deposited the sale consideration in the loan account. Subsequently, due to the default in repayment of the loan amount, the respondent bank had initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Asses and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act, in short). At that stage, the partnership firm approached the respondent bank, on 29.3.2013, for One Time Settlement and the bank has also agreed, for the same. The petitioner is said to have entered into an agreement to purchase one of the secured assets from the owner and also deposited a sum of Rs.10 lakhs in the 'no lien' account, but however, he could not arrange for the balance sale consideration and remit the amount within the time. While so, that the respondent bank had issued a sale notice. Hence, the petitioner has prayed for extension of time to settle the loan of M/s.Chennai Prima Leathers, under One Time Settlement scheme. 3. The respondent bank had filed the counter stating that the petitioner is neither a partner nor a guarantor nor a mortgagor of the secured asset and he has no right to file the writ petition, seeking extension of time to settle the loan of M/s.Chennai Prima Leathers, under One Time Settlement scheme. It is further stated that the respondent bank had agreed to the One Time Settlement norms, by its letter dated 29.3.2013, for payment of the amount of Rs.200 lakhs, before 15.3.2013 and on the request of the borrower, the time was extended till 22.6.2013. Since the borrower did not come forward to liquidate his dues to the respondent bank, as per the norms of the One Time Settlement scheme, the Branch had sent a communication, dated 25.6.2013, cancelling the One Time Settlement scheme, sanctioned to the borrower. 4. Since the borrower did not come forward to liquidate his dues to the respondent bank, as per the norms of the One Time Settlement scheme, the Branch had sent a communication, dated 25.6.2013, cancelling the One Time Settlement scheme, sanctioned to the borrower. 4. It is further stated by the respondent Bank that the partnership firm had filed a writ petition, in W.P.No.20751 of 2013, on 30.7.2013, challenging the cancellation of the One Time Settlement Scheme, dated 29.3.2013, but later, the writ petition was withdrawn. Moreover, the bank had granted extension of time, as requested by M/s.Chennai Prima Leathers, but the borrower has not cleared the dues. Hence, the respondent bank cancelled the One Time Settlement scheme, by its letter, dated 17.10.2013, and communicated the same to the borrower. 5. It is noted that the petitioner has filed the writ petition only on the basis of an agreement said to have been entered into with one of the owners of the secured asset. Admittedly, the petitioner is neither a partner nor a guarantor nor a mortgagor of the loan availed by the partnership firm M/s.Chennai Prima Leathers. The borrower, who was willing to settle the amount, with the respondent bank, under One Time Settlement Scheme, was given sufficient time and due to the non-fulfillment of the assurance, the One Time Settlement Scheme was cancelled and the same was communicated to the borrower, by the letters dated 25.6.2013 and 7.10.2013. 6. In view of the above fact situation, the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.