M/S.Sri Jaiganesh Enterprises v. M/S.City Union Bank,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.06.2024 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
1. M/s Sri Jaiganesh Enterprises Plot Nos.52 to 56, Eswari Gardens Titan Watches back side Anand Nagar Road, Hosur 635 126 Also M/s Sri Jaiganesh Enterprises at No.152, SIPCOT Industrial Complex Hosur 635 109
2. Mr.S.Velan Sivakumar
3. Mr.S.Elangovan
4. Mr.M.Shenbaganatarajan
5. Mr.D.Prasad Babu ..
Petitioners v.
City Union Bank No.123, Denkanikottai Road Opp to Sub Collector Office Hosur ..
Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relevant to the OTS letter dated 06.03.2023 passed by the
respondent and quash down the OTS letter dated 06.03.2023, therein fixed the date of payment on 07.03.2023, the said OTS letter received by the petitioners on 08.03.2023 and direct the respondent to issue fresh OTS letter.
For Petitioners ::
Mr.J.Siddhardhan
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR,J.) W.M.P.No.18290 of 2024 seeking to permit the petitioners to file a single writ petition stands allowed.
2. This writ petition is filed with a peculiar relief, obviously with ulterior motive, without bonafides. The one time settlement proposal submitted by the petitioners earlier by letter dated 13.02.2023 offering to pay a sum of Rs.415 lakhs, was approved by the respondent Bank by the impugned order dated 06.03.2023. The acceptance of one time settlement was subject to the condition that a sum of Rs.50 lakhs should be paid on or before 07.03.2023 and a further sum of Rs.365 lakhs should be paid on or before 10.04.2023. The petitioners challenge this communication nearly one
year and three months later, on the ground that the first condition directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.50 lakhs on or before 07.03.2023 could not have been complied with, as the letter dated 06.03.2023 itself was served on the petitioners only on 08.03.2023.
3. This Court is unable to see any bona fide in this contention. The petitioners had ample time to give a representation. When the proposal was subject to the entire payment being settled before 10.04.2023, the petitioners ought to have submitted a representation to grant sufficient time to make the first instalment, if they were really aggrieved by the manner in which the one time settlement proposal was approved by the respondent Bank and communicated to the petitioners. It is admitted that the petitioners have not submitted any representation to the respondent Bank after receipt of confirmation of offer vide letter dated 06.03.2023. This itself shows that there is absolutely no bonafides in this litigation. Moreover, this Court cannot dictate terms to the respondent Bank concerning one time settlement. The petitioners have failed to avail the opportunity granted earlier by the Bank and have approached this Court with untenable grounds. Having
regard to the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that this Court is not expected to give directions to the Bank regarding OTS proposal, which is within the exclusive discretion of the respondent Bank, this writ petition is devoid of any merit. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed not only for want of merits, but also for lack of bonafides. However, it is open to the petitioners to submit fresh proposal for OTS and the same may be considered by respondent in accordance with law as per any scheme or RBI guidelines applicable to the petitioners without prejudice to any other action the respondent Bank has initiated in the meanwhile. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.18293 & 18295 of 2024 are also dismissed. Index : yes/no (S.S.S.R.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 27.06.2024 ss To
1. The Authorised Officer City Union Bank No.123, Denkanikottai Road Opp to Sub Collector Office Hosur
S.S.SUNDAR,J.
AND N.SENTHILKUMAR,J.
ss 27.06.2024