M/S.Thilagavathi Traders v. Reserve Bank Of India
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.NO.10970 OF 2019 M/s.Thilagavathi Traders, A Registered partnership firm, Rep. by its Managing Partner, P.K.Pounraj, No.69, Adhiyaman Bye-Pass Road, Dharmapuri - 636 701.
... Petitioner .Vs.
1. The Reserve Bank of India, 16, Rajaji Salai, Fort St. Glacis, Chennai - 01.
2. The State Bank of India, Rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Stressed Assets Management Branch, 1112, Raja Plaza, Avinashi Road Coimbatore - 641 037.
3. The Assistant General Manager, and CLO-III, The State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, 1112, Raja Plaza, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore - 641 037.
... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent Bank to return to the petitioner the original documents of title relating to the property being the vacant commercial site measuring 15511.71SQ.Ft. at S.Nos.261 and 262 at Vellegoudampalaym village, Dharmapuri Taluk, Old locality 13-17 revised ward NO.16-9, Athiyaman Bye Pass Road, Dharmapur Municipality, Dharmapuri Sub Registration district, Dharmapuri Taluk as per the terms of the one time settlement dated
16.08.2017, sanctioned by the 2nd respondent Bank and accepted an acted upon by the petitioner.
For Petitioner :
Mr.C.V.Shailendharan For Respondents : M/s.Ramalingam and Associates For RR2 & 3
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking direction to the 2nd respondent Bank to return the petitioner's original documents of title relating to the property being the vacant commercial site measuring 15511.71SQ.Ft. At S.Nos.261 and 262 at Vellegoudampalaym village Dharmapuri Taluk Old locality 13-17 revised ward NO.16-9 Athiyaman Bye Pass Road Dharmapuri Municipality Dharmapuri Sub Registration district Dharmapuri Taluk as per the terms of the one time settlement dated 16.08.2017 sanctioned by the 2nd respondent Bank and accepted and acted upon by th petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the proprietor of four companies. For the development of the business activities, the petitioner had approached the Agri Commercial Branch of State Bank of India and availed certain credit facilities by way of over draft to the tune of Rs.5,00,00,000/- in the year 2014 in his Overdraft Account, for which, he had mortgaged his property to the second respondent Bank as security for availing the said facility. There was no event of default in the repayments, but the petitioner's account was wrongly classified as Non-performing asset and the said account has been migrated to the stressed Assets management Branch. The second respondent, to whom the loan account stood migrated, issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 12.05.
2016 calling upon the petitioner to repay a sum of Rs.4,93,61,841/- as on 05.05.2016 with further interest. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.18794 of 2016. This court, vide order dated 14.07.2016, disposed of the writ petition directing the second respondent Bank to consider the request for one time settlement. As per the repeated request made by the petitioner, the third respondent sanctioned the one time settlement by letter dated 16.08.2017 and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7.275/- Crores. As per the said proceedings, the petitioner has paid entire amount to the second respondent Bank. Thereafter, the second respondent sent ''No due certificate'' to the petitioner without sending the original documents of title deeds.
repeatedly requested the officials to return the original deeds. Till date, the second respondent has not returned. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the properties were given as an additional security to PKP Feed Mills Pvt. Ltd., for the loan availed in the year 2015. Apart from that, four properties have already been given as security in the Overdraft account of the said company. Subsequently, the respondent Bank sent a letter to the petitioner dated 16.08.2017 to settle the dues under one time settlement. The respondent Bank specifically excluded the property, which was mortgaged as an additional security worth about more than Rs.17 Crores. Total outstanding amount of the PKP Feed Mills Pvt. Ltd., over due is only Rs.10.75/- Crores. However, the security available to the second respondent is more than Rs.17/- crores. Hence, retaining the said documents of the said properties for the over due of PKP Feed Mills Pvt. Ltd., is unsustainable and the action of the second respondent is contrary to the one time settlement letter dated 16.08.2017. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the writ petition.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 & 3 submitted that though the PKB Feed Mills Pvt. Ltd., availed various credit facilities from the second respondent Bank, for which, the said company mortgaged four properties as security to the tune of Rs.17 Crore. Since the outstanding dues remain unpaid in the account of PKP Feed Mills Pvt. Ltd., the request of the petitioner seeking for release of the title deeds is not maintainable. However, the petitioner himself executed a consent letter for extend his property for the over dues of the PKP Feed Mills Pvt. Ltd., and inadvertently, the letter was given to the petitioner on 16.08.2017 excluding the said property, which is the only mistake committed by the Bank, it cannot be put against the respondent Bank. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
6. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the disputed property has been given as security to the loan availed by the petitioner for PKP Feed Mills Pvt. Ltd., in which the petitioner is working as a Managing Director. It is also not in dispute that over due amount was settled to the Bank on
December 2017. It is also not in dispute that the very same property was given as security for the over dues obtained by the PKP Feed Mills Private Ltd. It is also admitted fact that the document of the disputed property has given as additional security to the PKP Feed Mills Private Ltd., in the year 2014.
7. This Court perused the letter in SAMB/CBE/CCO.III/893 dated 16.08.2017 by the Stressed Asset Management, State Bank of India, letter in favour of the PKP Mills private Ltd., and perusal of the above said letter, the respondents have categorically mentioned about only four properties. However, the disputed property was excluded in the said letter. Since the bank itself excluded the said property which was given as additional security of the said loan, retaining the said document is not sustainable one.
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation to consider the genuine request made by the petitioner and this Court directs the respondents Bank to release the document in S.Nos.261 and 262 at Vellegoudampalaym village Dharmapuri Taluk Old locality 13-17 revised ward NO.16-9 Athiyaman Bye Pass Road, Dharmapuri Municipality Dharmapuri to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Rli To 1.
The Reserve Bank of India, 16, Rajaji Salai, Fort St. Glacis, Chennai - 01.
2. The Deputy General Manager, The State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, 1112, Raja Plaza, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore - 641 037.
3.
The Assistant General Manager and CLO-III, The State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, 1112, Raja Plaza, Avinashi Road, coimbatore - 641 037.
+1cc to Mr.C.V.Shailendharan, Advocate, S.R.No.63358 +2ccs to M/s.Ramalingam and Associates, Advocate, S.R.No.63091 W.P.NO.10970 OF 2019 KSM(CO) PBS/10/01/2022