C.Augustin Jebaraj v. The Reserve Bank Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.04.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD C.Augustin Jebaraj .. Petitioner -vs1. The Reserve Bank of India, No.16, Rajaji Salai, Fort Glacis, St. George Fort, Chennai 600 001.

2. The Joint Sub-Registrar, Andheri Taluk-5, Jogeeswari Telephone Exchange, Mumbai 400 102.

3. HDB Financial Services Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, No.68/2, Loyal Tower, 4th Floor, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006.

4. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, Edelweiss House, C.S.T.Road, Kalina, Mumbai 400 098.

(R-4 impleaded vide order dt.31.07.2023 made in WP) .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to dispose of

petitioner's representations dated 21.09.2022 and 03.11.2022 to cancel Assignment Agreement Doc No.Badar 17/6564/2021 dt.17.02.2021. For Petitioner :

Dr.Thiyagarajan Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Muruganandam For Respondents :

No appearance for RR 1 and 2 :

Mr.M.Ajmal Azzath for R-3 :

Mr.V.Balasubramani for R-4 * * * * *

ORDER

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) We have heard Dr.Thiyagarajan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Ajmal Azzath, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Mr.V.Balasubramani, learned counsel for respondent No.4. None appears for respondents 1 and 2.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the entire loan amount has been repaid and pursuant thereto, the respondent No.3 withdrew the execution proceedings.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.3/Assignor and respondent No.4/Assignee of the loan that the

counsel committed a mistake and instead of filing an application that the loan has been assigned, he has withdrawn the EP. The same was a mistake on the part of the counsel.

4. The present writ petition is filed for return of the documents and to cancel the Assignment Agreement.

5. The disputed questions of fact exist. The assignment of loan is between respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner claims complete discharge of loan and payment to respondent No.3 on the basis of the termination memo filed by respondent No.3 on 15.04.2021. However, in the present writ petition, the details of the payment made by the petitioner are not forthcoming.

6. As disputed questions of fact exist, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the forum where the proceedings were decided or appropriate forum as may be permissible under law. In that event, all the contentions of the respective parties are kept open.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(S.V.G., CJ.) (J.S.N.P., J.) 12.04.2024 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No sra To

1. The Reserve Bank of India, No.16, Rajaji Salai, Fort Glacis, St. George Fort, Chennai 600 001.

2. The Joint Sub-Registrar, Andheri Taluk-5, Jogeeswari Telephone Exchange, Mumbai 400 102.

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.

(sra) 12.04.2024