Madras High CourtWP(MD)/22516/2023dismissed

Mohamed Jaleel.P v. M/S.The Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.,

2023-09-15Honourable Mr Justice S.S. Sundar,Honourable Mr Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.09.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD)Nos.18750 & 18751 of 2023 P.Mohamed Jaleel ... Petitioner -vsM/s.The Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Officer, No.74, Lucky Land Plaza, Salai Road, Thillai Nagar, Trichy Branch, Trichy.

... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchurapalli in Cr.M.P.No.21006 of 2023 dated 27.07.2023 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondent to consider the Petitioner's request for one time settlement in respect of the loan account No.4604940001053 and another loan account No.460494200003134. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohamed Riyaz

For Respondent : Mr.Babu

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.] The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchurapalli, in Cr.M.P.No.21006 of 2023, dated 27.07.2023, and consequently direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's request for one time settlement in respect of the loan account Nos.4604940001053 and 460494200003134.

2. Heard Mr.A.Mohamed Riyaz, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Babu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

3. This Court finds no reason to entertain the Writ Petition as the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal, challenging the impugned order.

4. Though the petitioner is willing to pay substantial amount, he expects this Court to grand interim order so that possession would be handed over to him, for which the learned counsel respondent is not willing.

5. Therefore, with the liberty preserved to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal challenging the impugned order, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

[S.S.S.R, J.] [D.B.C., J.] 15.09.2023 Index : Yes / No sj

S.S.SUNDAR , J.

and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J.

sj 15.09.2023