Smt.Padmavathy, v. The Authorised Officer,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.01.2019 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.No.22194 of 2018 Padmavathy ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Authorized Officer, Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Peenya Branch, Peenya, 1st Cross, 1st Stage, Bangalore.

2.The Regional Manager, Dhanalakshmi Bank, Regional Office, No.58/A, Vishnupriya Arcade, 18th Main, 6th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore - 95.

... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of mandamus seeking for directing against the respondents to inform and receive the balance outstanding and deliver back the original title deeds. For Petitioner : Ms.Ananda Gomathy For Respondents: Mr.K.Rajasekaran

O R D E R

(Order of the Court made by M.DURAISWAMY,J.) The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to inform and receive the balance outstanding and deliver back the original Title Deeds.

2.It is the case of the petitioner that earlier she filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.3789 of 2017 challenging the order passed in R.A.(SA).No.78 of 2012 on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and consequently, to direct the Bank to accept the payment of Rs.16.86 lakhs as full and final https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

payment and to release the Title Deeds. The Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 18.08.2017, set aside the auction sale made in favour of the 2nd respondent therein (auction purchaser) and also the Sale Certificate registered on 19.04.2008 in favour of the auction purchaser. With regard to the consequential relief of full and final payment, this Court left it open to the petitioner to approach the Bank. Now, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for a direction to the respondent - Bank.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that if the petitioner approaches the 1st respondent - Bank, they would sort out the issue amicably. 4.However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has approached the 1st respondent - Bank several times, they have not given any concrete answer. 5.Since the Division Bench of this Court, in the order dated 18.08.2017, has already directed the petitioner to approach the respondent - Bank with regard to the full and final payment and for the return of the documents, the prayer in this Writ Petition seeking for similar relief cannot be granted. In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. -s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar va +1 CC to Ms.Ananda Gomathy, Advocate sr 5707. +1 CC to Mr.S. Rajasekaran, Advocate sr 3425. W.P.No.22194 of 2018 SSD(CO) SP(13/02/2019) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/