M.Maruthamauthu v. The State Bank Of India,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.11.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and W.M.P(MD)No.13871 of 2018 M.Maruthamauthu

...Petitioner

-VsThe State Bank of India, Manaparai Branch, Rep. by its Branch Manager.

...Respondent

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to impugned order with subject "RINN SAMADHAN SCHEME (ONE TIME SETTLEMENT OF NPA & AUCA) SCHEME CLOSES ON 31/01/2018 in No. Nil received on 11/12/2017, quash the same and b) consequently directing the respondent to release a sum of Rs.4,29,000/- with cumulative interest of 13.5% to the petitioner which is held illegally for the recovery of educational loan (Edu.Loan A/C No.30513267506) from the petitioner's monthly pension/retirement benefits from the petitioner's S.B.A/C.No.20154678470 within stipulated time framed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan for M/s.Chettinad Legal Solutions For Respondent : Mr.C.Karthick

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed directing the respondent to release a sum of Rs.4,29,000/- with cumulative interest of 13.5% to the petitioner which is held illegally for the recovery of educational loan (Edu.Loan A/C No. 30513267506) from the petitioner's monthly pension/retirement benefits from the petitioner's account and quash the same.

2.The petitioner also sought for a direction, directing the respondent to release a sum of Rs.4,29,000/- with cumulative interest which was recovered under the educational loan. The petitioner has availed educational loan from the respondent for his son's education. A sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was sanctioned and the same was disbursed by three installments. 3.Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service and his retirement benefits were credited to his account. However, a sum of Rs.4,24,000/- was held from his retirement benefits and Rs.5,000/- as monthly pension by the respondent in order to settle the loan amount. 4.The only contention raised by the petitioner is that without his consent it has been adjusted. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent for

one time settlement. However, the scheme for one time settlement was closed on 31.01.2018. Therefore, the prayer sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted and the writ petition is itself devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

5.Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 19.11.2024 Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order RJR

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, RJR 19.11.2024