WP/40530/2026 of P.NEWBEGIN SELVAKUMAR Vs The Branch Manager on 8 October 2026

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.08.2026 in the light of the communication of the respondent-Bank dated 14.05.2026.

2. The petitioner and his wife Mrs.Amritha Kumari are engaged in the Aavin Wholesale business in the name and style of M/s.NDP Milk Centre. In the year 1987, they had availed a credit facility for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in the respondent-Bank and thereafter, enhanced the credit facility to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-. Their credit facilities was enhanced subsequently and in the year 2015, the petitioner was sanctioned with two loan accounts, one for a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- and other for a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- . The petitioner was regular in making his repayment to the respondent-Bank till the year 2015, however, due to heavy flood in the year, the petitioner had incurred a total loss of Rs.1,75,00,000/- .

3. The petitioner would also submit that on 04.04.2008, the respondent- Bank had taken lease of the petitioner's property in Survey No.108/1M, Peerkankaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk, New Perungalathur, for a period of 10 years, on a monthly rent of Rs.48,000/- and the lease period would end by

14.04.2018. The respondent-Bank had paid the rental advance of Rs.2,88,000/-. While so, on 25.09.2014, a supplementary agreement for lease was entered into by the bank, in which the bank had agreed to pay the revised rent of 25% for a continuous period of 5 years. The petitioner would contend that the lease period had expired on 14.40.2018 and thereafter, the respondent Bank had not come forward to enter into a fresh agreement and without any revision, the Bank continued to pay the same rent from the year 2018 to till date. Therefore, the petitioner had made a representation to the Bank on 08.02.2018 to increase the rent to Rs.92/- per sq.ft., however, this was not in agreement by the respondent Bank. Hence, the petitioner made a fresh request to the Bank on 26.04.2018 by fixing the rent between Rs.65/- to Rs.70/- per sq.ft., Despite receiving the said offer and repeated request of the petitioner, the respondent has not come forward with any reply.

4. The petitioner would submit that the respondent without revising the rent, had proceeded to declare the credit facilities availed by the petitioner as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and the Bank had appropriated the rental amount towards the aforesaid outstanding two loan accounts. Since the petitioner could not run his business in a prosperous manner and found it difficult to manage the financial burden, had requested the respondent-Bank to consider for a One Time Settlement (OTS) of Rs,2,50,00,000/-, towards the closure of the credit facility availed by him. In this regard, the petitioner had approached the respondent-

Bank with his representations on 15.10.2025, 17.11.2025, 26.02.2026. However, his request was rejected by the respondent-Bank. Therefore, the petitioner had again approached the respondent Bank with his representation dated 26.02.2026 for a proposed settlement of Rs.3,75,00,000/- as full and final settlement of outstanding liabilities. Vide communication dated 14.05.2026, the respondent-Bank had declined the request of One-time Settlement on the ground that 10% upfront amount was not deposited. Further on 27.05.2018, the petitioner had offered two options in revising the rent. However, the respondent had not responded to the same. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed on record.

6. A perusal of the affidavit would also show that prior to leasing out his property, the petitioner had availed credit facilities from the respondent- Bank in the year 1987. The respondent-Bank in this writ petition are stated to be the tenant in respect of petitioner's premises at Survey No.108/1M, Peerkankaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk, New Perungalathur, measuring an extent of 3200 sq.ft., for a period of 10 years. The rental agreement dated 04.04.2008 specify the monthly rent and the advance payable, but there was no mention about the enhancement of rent. The agreement provided that the tenancy can be renewed for a further period of five years i.e., from 15.04.2018 to 14.04.2023, and it is for the respondent-Bank to exercise the option for renewal / continuation by executing a fresh agreement. The grievance of the petitioner is that the rental period had expired on 14.04.2018 but the respondent-Bank had neither agreed to pay the increased rent nor handed over the possession, however, it continued to squat on the property. The contention of the petitioner is that he has made a representation to the first respondent-Bank on 08.02.2018 regarding enhancement of rent, however, the bank had replied on 24.04.2018, that the rent claimed was very high. The petitioner had also informed the respondent-Bank by his representation dated 29.06.2018 that the prevailing rate of rent per sq.ft., in the said area was Rs.72/-. The petitioner would submit that without paying the enhanced rent, the respondent-Bank is attempting to declare the petitioner's credit facilities as Non-Performing Asset under the SARFAESI Act.

7. The petitioner would submit that he had also sought for a One Time Settlement of his credit facilities and with a request to enhance the monthly rent in respect of the premises. However, the respondent vide his communication dated 14.05.2016, had declined to consider his request for One Time Settlement as the 10% upfront amount was not deposited by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had once again approached the first respondent with his comprehensive representation / reply dated 26.08.2026. Since the respondents were not coming forward to consider the requests of the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed to consider his representation dated 26.08.2026.

8. The relevant portion of the petitioner's request to the Bank through its representation dated 26.08.2026 is as follows :

"We acknowledge receipt of your letters dated 29.07.2026. The contents of the said letters compel us to place the true facts on record. At the outset, we strongly deny the repeated allegation made in your letters that we are not interested in settling the loan accounts or that we have been making "empty promises". Such observations are contrary to the facts and ignore our continuous efforts over the past several years to arrive at an amicable settlement. From the time our loan account became NPA in 2017, we have consistently approached the Bank with a sincere intention to regularize and settle the accounts. Even after the account became NPA, we continued to make payments to the extent possible. As advised by the officials of your Bank, while making payments towards our business cheque transactions, we were also paying an additional 10% amount along with the cheque amount towards reduction of our outstanding loan liability. This clearly demonstrates our bona fide intention to reduce the dues and settle the account. However, our business operations suffered a severe setback when the Bank abruptly stopped our business cheque transactions without any prior notice or intimation. This resulted in the return of our business cheques, adversely affected our business reputation, interrupted our business operations and caused severe financial hardship. These circumstances significantly affected our repayment capacity, despite our sincere efforts to cooperate with the Bank.

Thereafter, the rental income payable by the Bank for occupying our premises became our only dependable source for servicing the loan accounts. It is pertinent to mention that approximately Rs.60 lakhs from our rental income has already been appropriated and credited by the Bank towards our loan accounts. This itself establishes that we have never attempted to evade repayment and have always cooperated with the Bank. Had we intended to avoid settlement, such substantial amounts arising from the rental income would never have been utilized towards the loan accounts. Your letters repeatedly state that we have failed to participate in the Lok Adalat proceedings. We respectfully submit that this does not reflect the complete facts. We have always been ready and willing to participate in the Lok Adalat proceedings. However, your office insisted that10% of the proposed OTS amount should first be deposited before our participation in the Lok Adalat could be considered. Since our request for settlement and adjustment of the long-pending rental arrears remained pending and no written OTS approval was issued by the Bank, we were unable to arrange the upfront amount within the stipulated time. Therefore, our inability to participate cannot be construed as unwillingness to settle. Even now, we remain ready to participate in any Lok Adalat or settlement proceedings if a fair opportunity is extended."

9. The petitioner is a simpliciter seeking to enforce the contract which he has entered into with his tenant. The remedy available to the petitioner is elsewhere namely before the Rent Court and not by way of filing writ petition.

This issue cannot be agitated before this Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart, the representation is one made to the respondent-Bank to act as as Judge for their own cause. Therefore, the above writ petition is without any basis and jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DS To:

1. The Branch Manager Indian Overseas Bank Perungalathur Branch, No.14 Veeraraghavan Street, NDP Complex, Srinivasa Nagar, New Perungalathur, Chennai - 600 063.

2. The Chief Regional Manager Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office, 20-21 Kamarajar Street, Kancheepuram - 631 501.

P.T.ASHA J. DS WP No. 40530 of 2026 08-10-2026