R. Muthukumaran v. The City Union Bank Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.07.2023 CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE and WMP.No.29452 of 2022 1.R.Muthukumaran 2.J.Saktivel .. Petitioners Vs 1.The City Union Bank Ltd., Head Office : No.24B Gandhi Nagar Kumbakonam - 612 001.

2.The Senior General Manager City Union Bank T.Nagar Branch Chennai - 600 017.

3.The Branch Manager City Union Bank Thirupati Branch Thirupati.

4.D.G.Nishanth .. Respondents 1/5

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to release the properties on the payment of dues in Loan Account Nos.502020010016612, 501812080071514, 501812080082059 without insisting NOC and pass orders as this Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. For Petitioners : Mr.T.Mohan for Mr.G.Muthukumar For Respondents : Mr.Ananda Gomathy for R1 to R3

ORDER

The petitioners herein are the two among three partners of a firm viz., M/s.Srinidhi Trading Company at Tirupathi, and the third partner is the fourth respondent . The firm is indebted to the third respondent-Bank. Of all the three partners, one is now gone missing and is not traceable. The remaining partners have been negotiating with the Bank for 'One Time Settlement' [OTS]. Indeed, sometime during last year, the Bank has also agreed upon the terms of the OTS, but insisted the petitioners to produce NOC from the other partner who has gone missing.

2/5

2. The first respondent had filed its counter whereas this respondent lists certain liabilities and quantifies the same.

3. The counsel for the petitioners on his part would submit that since a consensus was arrived under OTS scheme last year, it may have to be now reviewed, and the petitioners are now willing to approach the third respondent-Bank for denovo consideration of the OTS. This apart, the learned counsel also submitted that instead of NOC, the partners are willing to execute an indemnity, and that one of the title documents of the missing partner is also with the Bank.

4. Without getting into the negotiations relating to OTS or absence of it, this Court merely requires, as and when the time arises for resolving the transaction as between the existing partners of the firm and the respondents, the respondents are only required to obtain an indemnity from the existing partners of the firm as concerning the documents that they might be under an obligation to release on settlement.

3/5

5. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

14.07.2023 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order ds Note : Issue order copy on 20.07.2023 4/5

N.SESHASAYEE.J., ds W .P.No.30044 of 2022 1 4,07.2023 5/5