1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)NO.10904 of 2011 & M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 Madurai Central Market Vegetables & Perishable Commodities Merchants Co-ordinate Association, Rep.by its President V.Senthilkumar, S/o.Velusamy, Shop No.B-35, Commercial Complex, Vilangudi, Madurai. ... Petitioner -Versus- 1.The Union Bank of India, Rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director, Head Office, Nariman Point, Mumbai. 2.The Deputy General Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Central Kendriya Vidyalaya Opp: V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai. 3.The Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Kochadai Branch, Madurai. 4.S.Manuel Jeyaraj, S/o.Soundara Pandian, Jeyaraj Trading Company, A1,A2 Commercial Complex, Vilangudi, Madurai. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to regularize the loan bearing Account No.493906390179127 standing in the name of the petitioner's Association and consequently to withdraw the NOC issued by the Bank to the individuals at the instance of the fourth respondent. For Petitioner :Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondents :Mr.T.Govindasamy for R1 to R3 :Mr.M.Mohaboob Athiff for R4 O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Union Bank of India whose Officers are arrayed as Respondents 1 to 3, to regularize a loan taken in the name of the Association. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. Heard Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr.T.Govindasamy, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent. 3. The petitioner is a Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies' Registration Act, 1975. The members of the petitioner are the vendors of vegetables and other perishable commodities. Originally, the members of the petitioner were running their shops in the Central Market. When the Central Market was directed to be vacated, the petitioner purchased a vast extent of land in Vilangudi measuring about 15 acres and 25 cents and developed the same into a market and got allotment of the shop sites to the individual members. 4. It is the claim of the petitioner that they obtained a loan from the Union Bank of India, for the purpose of establishing a market at Vilangudi. The loan had been sanctioned on the security of the whole of the property purchased. 5. Unfortunately, as it happens in all the Societies, especially, in this part of the State, the internal bickerings between the elected members led to several civil litigations between the elected and the allegedly non elected persons. Even now, the suits are pending. 6. The fourth respondent herein claims to be to the present President. But, the petitioner claims that he is the President. Due to the internecine disputes between the parties, the Bank appears to have started accepting moneys and issuing 'No Objection Letter' in the name of individual allottees of the shops. But these letters releasing the shops from security are addressed to the fourth respondent. In other words, the Bank is still recognizing the fourth respondent as the representative of the association, infuriating the petitioner. Therefore, contending that this amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the loan and also interference with the dispute between the parties, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 7. A bare perusal of the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition would show that what is sought here, is actually something that the petitioner ought to have sought in the civil dispute. Admittedly, the Bank has also been made a party to the civil proceedings at least formally. 8. Apart from the fact that the prayer made in this writ petition cannot be made in this Court, the prayer may also go against the interests of some of the persons who are the allottees of the shops. The allottees of the shops are beneficiaries of these letters, since these letters release their shops from security. As a matter of fact, if a Bank violates the terms and conditions of grant of loan, the borrowers may take up several defences available to them under the law. Leaving aside all those remedies, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition and hence it is not maintainable. 9. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to workout his remedy before the civil Court where a litigation is already pending. It is needless to point out that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 ultimately it is the civil Court which is competent to decide the election dispute among the members of the petitioner association and any communication issued by the Bank to the fourth respondent will not have any influence upon the civil Court. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar TO 1. The Chairman & Managing Director, The Union Bank of India, Head Office, Nariman Point, Mumbai. 2.The Deputy General Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Central Kendriya Vidyalaya Opp: V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai. 3.The Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Kochadai Branch, Madurai. +1CC TO MR.T.GOVINDASAMY, ADVOCATE SR : 40488 +1CC TO MR.M.AJMALKHAN, ADVOCATE SR : 40449 Gsr SR : 21.11.2011 : 3p/6c : IT W.P.(MD)NO.10904 of 2011 17.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/