The court emphasized that in contractual matters, the court has no power to issue directions to the bank for rescheduling or repayment, and that the court cannot compel the bank for any rephasement or One Time Settlement.

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

1. Petitioner, is a guarantor, for a sum of Rs.15,20,000/- loan availed from the respondent bank. Borrower, Ganesan, has defaulted in payment. Respondent No.2/Bank has issued a notice dated 19.10.2016, under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, demanding payment of Rs.12,25,335/-, with interest within a period of 60 days. Subsequently, notice dated 28.12.2016, has been issued under Section 13(4) r/w Rule 8 of the SARFAESI Act, stating that symbolic possession of the secured asset viz., residential house of the petitioner has been taken over. However, on 03.01.2017, once again, a notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, has been issued.

2. Material on record discloses that the guarantor / petitioner has filed W.P.No.5464 of 2017 for a writ of declaration, declaring Rule 8(1) of Rule 2002 of SARFAESI Act, as unconstitutional and consequently, to declare possession taken on 28.12.2016 and 03.01.2017 by the 2nd respondent under Section 13(4) of the Act, as null and void, in respect of the petitioner's property in Survey No.32/7-A, 32/7-A1 to an extent of 2618 sq.ft., at Vellakalpatty Village, Omalur Taluk.

3. Vide order dated 19.04.2017 in W.P.No.5654 of 2017, a Hon'ble Division Bench, by observing that the Court is not convinced by the point raised by the petitioner therein, dismissed the writ petition. However, the Hon'ble Division Bench gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the bank directly to settle the dues by way of one time settlement and in such event, it is for the bank to come forward to accept the same.

4. Supporting affidavit to the instant writ petition shows that as against the order made in W.P.No.5654 of 2017 dated 19.04.2017, a review petition No.528 of 2017, has been filed and stated to be pending. According to the petitioner, he is willing to settle the dues by way of one time settlement. Hence he has filed the instant writ petition for a mandamus, directing the respondents to accept the dues by way of One time settlement, as per the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.5654 of 2017 dated 19.04.2017 by excluding incidental and other charges incurred by the bank, in instituting the SARFAESI proceedings.

5. Mr.F.B.Benjamin George, learned counsel appearing for the bank submitted that no such one time proposal dated 19.08.2017 has been received by the bank. Submission is placed on recorded.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

7. On more than one occasion, this Court has held that in contractual matters, Court has no power to issue directions to the bank, for rescheduling/rephasing, repayment. On the above aspect, we deem it fit to consider the following decisions.

(a) After considering a catena of decisions on the legal right of a person to seek for a writ of mandamus, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Vs. Millenium Business Solutions Private Limited, reported in 2004 (5) CTC 689, at Paragraph Nos.7,8,16 and 18, held as follows:

"7.In our considered opinion it is not proper for the Court to interfere in such matters relating to recovery of loans. Such matters are contractual in nature and writ jurisdiction is not the proper remedy for this. A writ lies when there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record, or there is violation of law. No writ lies merely for directing one time settlement or for directing re-scheduling of the loan or for fixing instalments in connection with the loan. It is only the bank or the financial institution which granted the loan which can re-schedule it or fix one time settlement or grant instalments. The Court has no right under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct grant of one time settlement or for re-scheduling of the loan, or to fix instalments.

8. No doubt Article 226 on its plain language states that a writ can be used by the High Court for enforcing a fundamental right or for 'any other purpose'. However, by judicial interpret